Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SALFORD CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read; Order discharged.

Bill recommitted to a Committee of the whole House, in respect of Clause 16.—[Mr. Kirk.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir SAMUEL STOREY in the Chair]

Clause 16—(PROHIBITION OF PARKING IN FRONT GARDENS.)

Mr. Kirk: I beg to move, in page 12, line 37, to leave out "or caravans".
The effect of this and all the subsequent Amendments is to delete "caravans" from the ambit of the general prohibition on the parking of commercial vehicles in gardens. This is agreed by the promoters.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 12, line 41, leave out "or caravans".

In page 13, line 14, leave out "or caravans".

In page 13, leave out lines 32 to 34.

In page 14, line 28, leave out "or caravan".—[Mr. Kirk.]

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to lie upon the Table.

BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

EDINBURGH MERCHANT COMPANY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that because of the time that has been spent in this procedure we shall have additional time after half-past three to make up for it?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that, under the existing Rules, Private Business may continue until a quarter to three. The time officially appointed for Questions does not begin until a quarter to three.

Mr. Manuel: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it possible—I am merely asking for my own information, with the greatest respect to you and to the Chair—that there is any other opportunity which could be taken by those who arrange these matters to deal with Private Business and matters of this kind other than at the beginning of Questions?

Mr. Speaker: If the Rules of the House were altered, it might be so.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

China (Trade)

Mr. C. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is satisfied that the changes made in Anglo-Chinese trade regulations some months ago are not hindering the expansion of that trade; and if he will make a statement.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Reginald Maudling): There is no reason why the present import arrangements should hinder expansion of trade with China since about 75 per cent. of our total imports are admitted freely and quotas for the rest allow generally for a substantial expansion of trade. Moreover, we arranged last April for substantial increases in certain quotas and for licences to be issued against quotas on the basis of firm orders placed with Chinese export corporations. It is the Goverlment's policy to encourage trade with China and we shall continue to administer the arrangements as liberally as possible consistently with national interest. Imports and exports in the first five months of this year were much greater than last year.

Mr. Osborne: May I ask my right hon. Friend two questions? First, can he assure the House that there has been no pressure from American sources to reduce this trade? Secondly, can he say what the main reasons are why the trade has not expanded even more than it has done recently?

Mr. Maudling: There is certainly no pressure from American sources to alter our policy. I thought that the trade was expanding very satisfactorily. Speaking from memory, the main difficulty is, on the whole, the shortage of sterling in Chinese hands.

Mr. Rankin: Is it not the case that, were it not for the agreement on restrictions of last November, Chinese trade would today have been greater than it is?

Mr. Maudling: The restrictions on Chinese trade are precisely the same as the restrictions on other State-trading countries. I am sure they are necessary.
For example, I do not think the House would contemplate completely free admission of Chinese cotton textiles. We must realise that there are interests in this country to be looked after.

Scientific Instruments

Mr. C. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the potential damage to United Kingdom export trade in scientific instruments through failure to keep up with developments in importing countries; if he will, accordingly, ask the Scientific Instrument Manufacturers of Great Britain to make a report to him on their recent exhibition in Moscow, and especially for their expert opinion as to how scientific instrument manufacturing in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics compares with that of Great Britain; if he will publish their report; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Maudling: No, Sir; United Kingdom exports of scientific instruments have risen steadily in recent years. The Moscow Exhibition was a great success and the Russians showed interest in buying many types of British equipment. As I said in answer to my hon. Friend on 7th July, the manufacturers who exhibited in Moscow will be discussing their experiences with officials.

Mr. Osborne: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that both The Times and the Daily Telegraph reported that our exhibitors in Moscow were absolutely "flabbergasted" at the quality of the Russian products, which made it, of course, awkward for them to sell what we are producing? Cannot he get some report from them so that both workers and managements may be shown that they must pull up their socks in order to catch up with the Russians?

Mr. Maudling: I cannot accept my hon. Friend's view in this matter. I agree that Russian progress in this field is very considerable, but our people are doing pretty well too. Between 90 and 95 per cent. of the equipment shown in the exhibition was sold.

Pyrethrum

Mr. Albu: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will arrange for figures relating to the import and export of the natural insecticide, pyrethrum


extract, to be published as separate items in the United Kingdom Monthly Trade and Navigation Accounts, now that the import of pyrethrum into the United Kingdom is about £500,000 annually and constitutes a relatively important part of inter-Commonwealth trade, and in view of the fact that other import and export items of a much smaller value are included in the Accounts.

Mr. Maudling: I will consider this suggestion though it is too late for consideration for the 1961 Accounts.

Mr. Albu: Is the President aware that there are a number of chemical products in the same division of which the imports are very much less which are itemised separately, and that this happens to be a particularly important export of Kenya and one which is growing?

Mr. Maudling: I think there is a strong case for including this in the statistics. I will look into the matter.

Imports from Japan

Mr. Grey: asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the full effect of the proposed increase in the importation of Japanese radio receivers upon industry in the United Kingdom; if he will take steps to see that the industry is not depressed as a result of such an action; and if he will make a statement of his intentions in the matter.

Mr. Dodds: asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the difficulties facing the radio industry of the United Kingdom resulting from the re-imposition of hire-purchase and credit controls, if he wild ensure, during the Anglo-Japanese trade talks, that there shall be no substantial increase in the import quota of low-priced Japanese transistor radios produced by low-paid labour.

Mr. Maudling: I have agreed to increase the quota for transistorised radios to be imported from Japan to £200,000. In addition, I am instituting a quota of £100,000 for the import of Japanese non-transistorised radio and television sets and a quota of £100,000 for the import of Japanese non-transistorised radio gramophones and gramophones.
I do not expect these increases to cause any serious difficulty for our radio industry.

Mr. Grey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the alarm which exists in the country about the prospect of this agreement? Does it not mean that there will be on the home market large quantities of Japanese transistor radio sets at a time when the home industry, as a result of recent Government restrictions, is having to cut back its sales? Is he aware that a radio factory in Spennymoor has had plans for future development, but owing to this agreement and the restrictions which the Government have already imposed it is very doubtful whether that development can be carried out? Is there any sense in the Government's talking about expansion of industry when at the same time they do such things as this, which make it more difficult for British firms to sell the goods which they manufacture? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the agreement will not have disastrous effects on the home industry?

Mr. Maudling: I do not agree that there is any cause for alarm. The quota is £200,000, and the latest figure that I have for the sales, of home-produced sets is more like £7 million. If we expect to sell our manufactured goods abroad, we must be prepared to allow imparts. I think that, on balance, the agreement with Japan will mean a useful increase in trade in both directions.

Mr. Dodds: Is it not regrettable that the quota should be increased tenfold at a time when Government action is hitting the radio industry? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that Japanese components have been imported in Austrian and Italian sets? Is it not a fact that, as a result of the Eire Government's favourable terms to a Japanese subsidiary, we are likely to get more of these goods from the free port of Shannon? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the main component of these transistors is not the raw material but the labour? They have a high labour content. Is he aware that the Japanese workers are getting only 1s.—1s. 6d. an hour compared with 6s. per hour in this country? What chance have we got? When will this sort of thing be happening with television sets?

Mr. Maudling: The increase in the import of Japanese radios is extremely modest. On the other hand, as a result of the agreement we shall sell in Japan, I am sure, greatly increased quantities of such items as machine tools and woollen cloth, and that is a very good thing for British trade.

Hovercraft

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the President of the Board of Trade what are Her Majesty's Government's plans for the future commercial development of Hovercraft for carrying passengers and freight, respectively.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers): The commercial development of Hovercraft is the responsibility of Hovercraft Development Ltd. This Company, which is financed by the National Research and Development Corporation under the Development of Inventions Act, 1948, has so far issued two statements about its plans for collaboration with industry.

Mr. Noel-Baker: That answer tells us very little indeed. Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that there are large numbers of the general public and a considerable number of my own constituents being asked to manufacture the machines who really want to know whether the Government think that it has a future or not as a means of transportation? Can the hon. Gentleman say whether at any stage the Government will give their views about the future or otherwise of the Hovercraft?

Mr. Rodgers: The fact that Hovercraft Development Limited recently announced arrangements with Vickers and Westland to produce operational prototypes which will be larger and more advanced than the existing S.R.N.1, which was demonstrated on the river outside the House, shows that it thinks that there is a commercial future for this vehicle.

Holiday Season

Sir R. Robinson: asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made by the interdepartmental committee reviewing the problems of extending the summer holiday season; and when he expects to receive its report.

Mr. J. Rodgers: As my right hon. Friend explained to his hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Mathew) on 14th July, the Committee on the Extension of the Holiday Season has met six times since its appointment last March and hopes to present an interim Report by October.

Sir R. Robinson: As none of the problems before this Committee is new, will my hon. Friend undertake to ask it to expedite its final findings so that we can have action before the next holiday season?

Mr. Rodgers: I cannot quite agree with my hon. Friend. There is need, I think, for reliable information about the choice of holiday dates, and Social Survey is undertaking now a sample survey to elicit information about why people take their holidays when they do. Preliminary results from this cannot be made available before the middle of September.

Sir R. Robinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the House has been discussing this problem for more than 22 years?

Mr. Rodgers: I am well aware that the subject has been discussed for a long time, but it is very important that adequate consultations should be undertaken with all those concerned in order to ensure the widest measure of support for the Committee's recommendations when it makes them.

Scottish Region (Departmental Staff)

Mr. Lawson: asked the President of the Board of Trade what in the number of production engineers employed in the Scottish Region of his Department for the purpose of assessing the production capacities of the different branches of Scottish industry.

Mr. J. Rodgers: None, Sir.

Mr. Lawson: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that if there were some people in Scotland who could advise Scottish firms about the production capabilities of other Scottish firms it might be possible for us to step up production in Scotland much more than we have succeeded in doing? Will he look at the question? Is it not very bad that the Board of Trade has no one in Scotland who can give such advice?

Mr. Rodgers: I will certainly look into the point, but the staff of the Office for Scotland give advice about the production capacity of Scottish industry. We do not consider it necessary to employ production engineers for this purpose. The information can usually be obtained from the Office for Scotland or any of the other appropriate regional offices.

Mr. T. Fraser: Was not the Scottish Regional Office equipped with those engineering personnel during the war and immediate post-war period? Was it not seen to be a great advantage? If so, would it not be an advantage to have such people now?

Mr. Rodgers: Perhaps the hon. Member might like to put down that question.

Mr. Lawson: asked the President of the Board of Trade what number of civil servants of the senior executive grade, and upwards, are employed in the Scottish Region of his Department.

Mr. J. Rodgers: Six, including the Secretary of the Regional Board for Industry.

Mr. Lawson: Does the Parliamentary Secretary consider that there are enough of these people in Scotland, particularly in view of the fact that his Department recently wrongly advised my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. Timmons) and myself about who was occupying the naval stores at Carfin? This indicates that the hon. Gentleman's Department does not have much knowledge of what is going on in Scotland. Will not the hon. Gentleman examine this number to see whether there are enough people to do the job which they are supposed to be doing in Scotland?

Mr. Rodgers: We have no evidence whatever that extra staff is required, but naturally I will look into the point which the hon. Member has raised.

Nuclear Power Programme

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the effect of the cut-back of the nuclear power programme on subsidiary producers of the relevant industrial components.

Mr. J. Rodgers: The suppliers of ancillary equipment for nuclear power stations are so numerous and the pro

ducts in question are so diverse that it would be impracticable to make any such estimate.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary did not detect a constituency interest in the Question. Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that Vickers Armstrong (South Marston) Limited have now gone out of aircraft and into this line of business and are anxious about the possible effects of the cut-back on their work? Swindon faces a difficult problem for the future in this matter. Will the hon. Gentleman examine it in that light and write to me with further information?

Mr. Rodgers: Rephasing of the programme will, naturally, have some effect on the volume of orders obtained by some of the ancillary suppliers. Most of them, however, have many other outlets for their equipment and there is no reason to expect a severe effect on their business as a whole. A lot of firms concerned are very busy indeed. I will, however, certainly look into the individual case that the hon. Member has raised.

Resale Price Maintenance

Mr. Pitman: asked the President of the Board of Trade why the covering letter accompanying the questionnaire issued by him in connection with the fact-finding inquiry into resale price maintenance states that the Board is already fully aware of the general arguments for and against resale price maintenance, when specific questions contained in the questionnaire ask manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers to indicate what, from their point of view, are the advantages or disadvantages of fixed prices; and whether he will take steps to correct the misunderstandings which may arise from this contradiction.

Mr. J. Rodgers: The distinction intended is between arguments of a general nature, which have already been exhaustively canvassed, and the specific considerations which lead the individual firm in the circumstances of its particular industry or trade to adopt or refrain from adopting resale price maintenance.

Mr. Pitman: Is my hon. Friend aware that in respect of particular items the retail trade is left in great doubt, because


his columnar treatment allows of four possibilities whereas, in fact, there is a fifth possibility—that the prices are neither fixed nor suggested? Therefore, leaving it blank gives room for doubt, because either the goods are not supplied or, if they are supplied, their price is neither fixed nor suggested. I know that this is a matter which is causing difficulty and I am wondering whether my hon. Friend is aware of this.

Mr. Rodgers: Naturally, in an exercise of this nature, there is scope for disagreement about the questions which might have been asked. I will, however, look into the point which my hon. Friend has raised, although I should point out that the questions which we included in the questionnaire followed consultation with a great many trade organisations.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will place a copy in the Library of the questionnaire which he is sending out to wholesalers, manufacturers and retailers in connection with his fact-finding inquiry into resale price maintenance; and what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that the questionnaire which has been drafted for retailers is suitable for the average small retailer in this country and will be understood by him.

Mr. J. Rodgers: My right hon. Friend is arranging to put a copy of the three questionnaires in the Library. With regard to the latter part of the Question, careful consideration was given to the problem of drafting the questionnaire in a form which would both make it readily intelligible and produce the kind of information which we are seeking.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my hon. Friend aware that hon. Members will be grateful to be able to see the questionnaire, because it has been suggested to some of us that it is a difficult and comprehensive questionnaire for the average small shopkeeper to answer?

Mr. Rodgers: The National Chambers of Trade, the Proprietary Articles Trade Association, the Federation of British Industries and other trade bodies were specifically asked whether the questions would be understood and answered by large and small traders. They considered that the questions would be easily intel-

ligible. I hope that my hon. Friend does not underestimate the intelligence of the retailers.

Mr. Janner: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his questionnaire in connection with resale price maintenance has now been distributed to all persons to whom it is intended it should go; what has been the method of selecting the recipients; what is the latest date by which the information has to reach his Department; and when he expects to announce the result.

Mrs. McLaughlin: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many questionnaires he is distributing in connection with his fact-finding inquiry about resale price maintenance; how many will go, respectively, to manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers; through what channels they will be distributed; and what arrangements are being made to inform individuals who do not receive a copy of the questionnaire how they can get one if they wish to do so.

Mr. J. Rodgers: The questionnaire should by now be in the hands of most of those intended to receive them. Nearly 8,000 have been distributed in all, some 6,000 to retailers, the balance being divided between wholesalers and manufacturers. A number of representative trade organisations have assisted by distributing copies to wholesalers and to retailers, and my right hon. Friend is glad of this opportunity of acknowledging their help; manufacturers have received copies directly from the Board. In all cases attention has been paid to securing coverage of firms of all sizes, and in all regions, concerned with almost all types of goods. A notice has been published in the Board of Trade Journal, informing interested persons that they can obtain a questionnaire if they so wish. The final date for return is 17th September, 1960, but I am not yet in a position to say when the inquiry will be completed.

Mr. Janner: While thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for his reply, may I ask him whether he will see to it that when the returns are received there will be no undue delay in the matter, since it is, of course, a very important one?

Mr. Rodgers: Certainly I agree that speed is very important.

Electrical Goods

Mr. Slater: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) why he is allowing imported electrical goods into this country, since such permission adversely affects the home market and deprives United Kingdom workers of jobs;

(2) what guarantee of protection is given to the electrical manufacturing industry against an increase in imports which would directly or indirectly affect it.

Mr. Maudling: It is our policy to use the tariff as the normal means of protection and to remove our remaining import restrictions as soon as we can.

Mr. Slater: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that, apart from what he had to say in reply to Question No. 9 by my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Grey), there is no justification whatever for allowing these Japanese radio sets to be imported in this way and thus deprive many of our people of work? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the electrical industry offers the prospect of increased employment for many of our young people on leaving school? Is he further aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Hon. Members ought to realise that I have asked two Questions. Is the President of the Board of Trade further aware that juvenile unemployment in Durham county has gone up by no less than 25 per cent. over the last month? What is to be done about this?

Mr. Maudling: The policy of relying on the tariff to protect our industry is an inherent part of our membership of G.A.T.T., which has been the agreed policy of both sides of the House for a long while. The tariff on foreign electrical goods varies from 10 to 33 per cent., which seems to me a fairly reasonable level of tariff protection. If we do not let electrical goods come in, we cannot, of course, expect to export them. Last year, whereas we imported £40 million worth, our exports totalled £231 million.

Mr. Slater: Does not the President of the Board of Trade agree that, in view of the high incidence of unemployment in various parts of the country, every positive step should be taken to safe

guard the employment of our people in those areas which depend upon the productive capacity of employment of this nature?

Mr. Maudling: To try to protect our industries by imposing quotas contrary to the rules of G.A.T.T. would, in the long run, do more harm to our trade than good.

Telephone Equipment Manufacturing Industry

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will refer the telephone equipment manufacturing industry to the Monopolies Commission.

Mr. J. Rodgers: My right hon. Friend will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind when considering new references to the Monopolies Commission. Before considering such a reference, however, my right hon. Friend would have to be satisfied that the conditions to which the Act applies prevail in the industry.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my hon. Friend seriously consider either referring this industry to the Monopolies Commission or referring the agreement to the Restrictive Trade Practices Court, because there seems to be a feeling that this electrical telephone manufacturers' ring of seven firms is producing goods worth £75 million a year and selling them all to one customer—namely, the Post Office—and that their agreement is of such a nature that it would normally be taken before the Restrictive Trade Practices Court?

Mr. Rodgers: We are, of course, aware of the facts which my hon. Friend has mentioned, but the conditions to which the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act applies prevail if at least one-third of the goods in question
which are supplied in the United Kingdom or any substantial part thereof are supplied by or to any one person.
There are eight parties to the agreement and it is doubtful whether any of them supplies as much as 30 per cent.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware of the financial battle that is going on in the City these days to get into this 'monopoly? Is he not equally aware that the Post Office is


in a stranglehold by this monopoly? Is he not further aware that this matter should be thoroughly investigated so that we might see whether we should take steps to end this arrangement and to give the Post Office a bit of freedom and the customer better value?

Mr. Rodgers: I am aware that Pye, Ltd., is attempting to buy control of the Telephone Manufacturing Company. The other part of the question which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned is a matter more for my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General than for me.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: We want to be assured that either the Monopolies Commission or the Restrictive Practices Court is able to deal with this subject and that there is no danger of the matter slipping between the two, thus exposing a dangerous gap in the Government's legislation for dealing with restrictive practices. May we have that assurance?

Mr. Rodgers: There is no danger of that. We are considering——

Mr. Roy Jenkins: One or other of them?

Mr. Rodgers: Not necessarily one or the other, but the points that have been raised in question and answer today.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that a Government Department is being held to ransom in this matter? Here is a tightly bound monopoly. The Post Office is completely at its mercy and has some £60 million a year involved. Surely, this is an extraordinary case that should be referred to the Commission.

Mr. Rodgers: I cannot accept that the Post Office is being held to ransom.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Of course it is.

Mr. Rodgers: It is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, who would take steps if he felt that that was so.

Channel Islands (Deliveries)

Sir C. Black: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the concern in the Channel Islands regarding the long delays which occur in the delivery there of exports

from the United Kingdom; and whether he will use his good offices to overcome these difficulties.

Mr. Maudling: I am not aware of any delays in deliveries to the Channel Islands. If my hon. Friend is referring to shipping delays, he may wish to put a Question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

Law Reform (Security on Moveables)

Mr. Stodart: asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the recent recommendations of the Law Reform Society for Scotland that the existing law of security on moveables should be amended; if he is aware that such recommendation can be effected by amendment of the Companies Act, 1948; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. J. Rodgers: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is considering with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland how the matter can best be handled.

Mr. Stodart: Is my hon. Friend aware that on Tuesday last week his right hon. Friend was singing the virtues of the Scottish people investing in Scottish industry, and is he further aware that in this unanimous report it is stated that the present law of security on moveables does constitute a barrier to such investment? Will my hon. Friend give most urgent consideration to the amendment of the law as speedily as possible?

Mr. Rodgers: One of the points being discussed with the Scottish Office is whether the implementation of the recommendations could most appropriately be achieved by amending the Companies Act. That, I think, will cover my hon. Friend's supplementary question.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Is my hon. Friend aware that this matter has been under consideration now for many years and before it was before the Law Reform Committee? One of the main examples shown in this report, namely, that relating to the fishing industry of Aberdeen, absolutely proves the fact that a great part of Scottish industry now is under a definite disadvantage compared with


English industry owing to the law. Therefore, can my hon. Friend not give an assurance that some provision will be introduced definitely to deal with the point early in the next Session?

Mr. Rodgers: The report was published only on 28th June, and have said that my right hon. Friend is already in consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland on this matter.

South Durham

Mr. Boyden: asked the President of the Board of Trade where, when, and in what industries, the 1,000 jobs promised for South Durham will accrue.

Mr. J. Rodgers: The estimate of 1,000 new jobs in South Durham which my right hon. Friend gave the hon. Member on 30th June related to the employment exchange areas of Darlington and Barnard Castle, excluding Darlington County Borough. Most of these new jobs are expected to arise on the Aycliffe Trading Estate. They cover a variety of industries and will arise at varying times.

Mr. Boyden: In view of the continuing and persistent unemployment in this area and the very unsatisfactory nature of the Answer, would the Parliamentary Secretary consider building at least one factory in advance of demand either in Barnard Castle rural district at Even-wood, or Shildon or West Auckland, where the local authorities are just bursting to help the Board of Trade if only it will do something for us?

Mr. Rodgers: I cannot agree about the unsatisfactory nature of that Answer, since it merely gives the facts. The facts may be unsatisfactory, but the Answer need not necessarily be. The whole question of advance factories is one which is one under consideration.

Frozen Peas

Mr. Bullard: asked the President of the Board of Trade what increase there has been in the quantity of frozen peas imported from the United States of America since the lifting of the restrictions On imports from dollar countries, up to the most recent convenient date.

Mr. Maudling: The restriction on these imports from the dollar area was lifted on 8th June, 1959, but figures are

not available prior to 1960. Imports from the U.S.A. during the period January-May, 1960, were 40,648 cwts.

Mr. Bullard: It seems that this must be an increase almost from nil, because I imagine that previously it was very small. Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that this industry of the freezing and processing of vegetables is a very important one for employment both on the farms and in the towns, particularly in eastern England, and will he look again at the case for tariff change in connection with these imports, having rejected the case put forward last year?

Mr. Maudling: An application for an increased import duty was rejected in March this year. If since March there has been a change in the situation extensive enough to make a marked change in it, certainly we will look at a renewed application.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that over the post-war years East Anglia has been responsible for the production of a very considerable tonnage of peas, some of which have been dried and sold as frozen vegetables, and that the policy of the Government seems to be interpreted in the area as one of squeezing out the home producers? Will he please stop that?

Mr. Maudling: I think that would be a bad interpretation. I will certainly bear in mind the interests of East Anglia. I know that if I did not even for a moment my hon. and gallant Friend would see that I did.

Scotland

Mr. Woodburn: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the work of distributing industry and stimulating enterprise in the areas of Scotland and elsewhere which are losing population and to prevent the overgrowth of the areas of industrial attraction, the Government will consider the use of methods of tax holiday, grants and loans now being used to develop industry in Malta.

Mr. J. Rodgers: My hon. Friend is satisfied that the powers given to the Department under the Local Employment Act and the Town and Country Planning Acts are sufficient for the purpose.

Mr. Woodburn: Are the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and also the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom I see present, aware that these powers do not work in great parts of Scotland and that so far none of the powers has ever worked in getting industry into those areas? Are they aware that the Colonial Secretary has now devised a most interesting scheme for taking industry to Malta, and will they not see that Scotland has at least most-favoured-nation treatment in this respect? What is good enough for Malta should be used, if necessary, for both the North-East Coast and Scotland in order to get new industry there.

Mr. Rodgers: I cannot agree that the Local Employment Act has not produced new industry in Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where in Scotland?"] Perhaps it has not produced enough, but we are certainly producing new industry. The analogy with Malta is misleading. It is one thing to have tax advantages or similar discriminatory inducements covering a whole area; it is another thing to have discriminatory inducements operating only in certain places. Just imagine the difficulty of assessing tax of a firm which is based in different places—such as B.M.C. in Scotland and in the Midlands.

Mr. Woodburn: Would not the hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider at least some extraordinary means to deal with an extraordinary situation? Why cannot they let the banks give credit to industry starting up in Scotland without restriction, instead of leaving them tied as they are?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Staffordshire Potteries Water Board (Tenders)

Dr. Stross: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he studied the detailed figures of the tenders submitted to the Staffordshire Potteries Water Board by the four firms that recently tendered for cast-iron pipes and special castings; and why he decided to refer this matter to the Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements.

Mr. J. Rodgers: My right hon. Friend has studied the information supplied to

him on this subject. The suggestion had been made by some hon. Members that the fact that closely similar tenders were submitted indicated that a registered agreement, supposed to have been terminated, had been revived. Investigation of complaints on this score is a matter for the Registrar and not for the Monopolies Commission.

Dr. Stross: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that this is the second occasion that this has happened within two years? If he has studied the figures carefully he must be aware that the chance of coincidence must be more than one in a million—one in a billion? How long are local citizens to be held up to ransom in this way? The answer he gave to my hon. Friends does not really suggest that there is much intelligence in the people who prepared the answers.

Mr. Rodgers: It is true that the Registrar did investigate a similar complaint last year and then found that there was no reasonable cause for him to believe that a registrable agreement did exist in this case. The papers have been referred to the Registrar and he is now looking into them.

Mrs. Slater: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that exactly the same Answer was given to us before? We were told at that time that if further tenders were asked for and the same thing happened the matter would be dealt with. Tenders were asked for, and the same thing happened. We have had the same thing happen again. Is the local authority, the Staffordshire Potteries Water Board, to be held up by high interest rates, on the one hand, and, on the other, at the point of a gun by firms such as these?

Mr. Rodgers: As I said, it is not a matter for my right hon. Friend, and the papers have gone to the Registrar.

United States (Wool Tariff Quota)

Mr. Wade: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a further statement on his negotiations for the removal of the United States wool tariff quota.

Mr. Maudling: I have at present nothing to add to my reply to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) on 30th June.

Mr. Wade: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is not much good urging the exporters to export more goods if they are already only too willing to do so but are prevented by prohibitive tariffs? While I agree about the removal of the wool tariff quota, is he aware of the report in the American Press that this is to be replaced by a 38 per cent. ad valorem duty plus weight duty, and will he agree that this would mean infringing the terms of G.A.T.T.? Are the Government, as a member of G.A.T.T., free to object to it?

Mr. Maudling: The hon. Member's first proposition is, I think, quite unexceptionable. On the second point, I have seen rumours in the Press. They are quite unauthorised. I do not think I can make any comment till there is an official statement.

Mr. Hirst: They may be unauthorised in the official sense, but the trade has good reason to believe this is the very type of settlement which the United States wish to impose on the British Government. Will my right hon. Friend look at the matter again, if he cannot say anything more at this juncture, to make quite sure that this type of imposition does not in fact take place?

Mr. Maudling: The United States Government are quite well aware of our views in this matter. There are other parties concerned, the Italians and the Japanese, for instance. However, it is not possible to comment till there is an official announcement.

Mr. Rhodes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these tariff quotas are heavily weighted by the United States in favour of the Japanese on political and strategic grounds? Is it not time that representations were made on a much stronger basis to see to it that there is not the unfair opposition experienced by British manufacturers in the United States?

Mr. Maudling: I agree that the tariff quota system has worked against us, but I do not think that that was the deliberate intention and we are very much hoping it will be done away with.

New Potatoes

Mr. Bullard: asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the quantity of new potatoes imported from

Greece in the month of June this year, or to the latest convenient date; and how this compares with the quantity imported in the same period in 1959.

Mr. Maudling: Imports during the months of May, 1959 and 1960, were nil and 5,528 tons, respectively.

Mr. Bullard: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there have been very wild statements in some sections of the agricultural Press about the extent to which Greek imports were likely to capture the home market for new potatoes? Is he aware that this upsetting of the new potato trade by excessive imports is a very serious matter for the whole potato-growing industry? Is he aware that new potatoes, if they are not eaten, grow into old potatoes and, therefore, make serious difficulties for the Government in implementing their guarantee of the potato crop which they have entered into with the farming community?

Mr. Maudling: The imports last year were nearly 10,000 tons. I would expect the rate of imports from Greece to decline, because in the middle of May a heavy duty of £9 6s. 8d. a ton on new potatoes began to apply.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this import of potatoes has caused great concern among Tory farmers in my constituency and that they have asked me to take the matter up? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this has a very grave effect on new potato growing in the west of Scotland and that recently cargoes of Belgian potatoes have been arriving as well as those from Greece? Is he aware that a small number of speculators are making very big profits out of something which is ruining Ayrshire potato-growing?

Mr. Maudling: Whilst I welcome the hon. Member's impartiality, he has a little over-stated the position. The facts about Greek imports are as I have stated them.

Export Trade

Mr. Rankin: asked the President of the Board of Trade in view of the latest trade returns, what further steps he proposes taking to stimulate British exports.

Mr. Maudling: The Board of Trade is constantly seeking to extend the services it provides for exporters and to


bring to the attention of all businessmen the need for exports and the range of opportunities open in overseas markets.

Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Prime Minister could tell us far more yesterday when he was speaking about this problem? The Prime Minister is evidently worried about its gravity. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend said yesterday to 400 businessmen that Britain can sell any quantity of goods in any number of markets? There is no restriction. Does that mean that the President of the Board of Trade will now approve the trade agreement which has just been made by the Institute of Directors with Russian manufacturers covering the next 20 years and there will be no restriction on the type of goods that we export?

Mr. Maudling: I am well aware what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, because I was at the meeting. A trade agreement between the Institute of Directors and the Russian Government seems a rather unusual form of agreement and I should like to see details before commenting on it.

Lady Tweedsmuir: As it is widely thought that there are many small firms in Scotland which might enter the export markets for the first time, might I ask my right hon. Friend whether his own Department sponsors meetings in various localities or encourages chambers of commerce in these areas to have meetings of the smaller firms to put before them the opportunites that are available?

Mr. Maudling: Yes, indeed. We are certainly doing that and I should be grateful for the assistance of all hon. Members in pushing this campaign forward.

Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the agreement made by the delegation from the Institute of Directors is now in his hands awaiting his approval?

Mr. Maudling: No, Sir. I am afraid that I am not aware of that.

Mr. Rankin: The right hon. Gentleman had better wake up.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Housing Loans (Interest Rates)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. FRANK ALLAUN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will defer his sanction to the loan of £18 millions at 4½ per cent. to the Cunard Company until such time as a comparable rate of interest is available to local authorities for housing loans.

Mr. Allaun: Before putting Question No. 34, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has indicated to you any intention to make a statement to the House today about an announcement made by him last Friday in reply to a Written Question from a Conservative Member announcing a further increase in interest rates? Alternatively, has the right hon. Gentleman indicated to you any intention to answer Questions Nos. 57, 59, 60 and 64?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I called the hon. Member to ask Question 34.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): The proposals contained in the Chandos Report are being examined and account will be taken of all relevant considerations.

Mr. Allaun: But is it not a grave injustice that the Government are raising interest rates on public housing loans at the very moment that they are reducing the rate to certain private firms? Is the Chancellor aware that a £1,500 council house will now cost £5,510 by the time that it has paid interest for 60 years at the new rate of 6 per cent.? Is he aware that this difference of 1½ per cent. will add £1,160 to the total cost of the house, or 7s. 6d. a week extra on the rent?

Mr. Amory: The second half of the hon. Member's supplementary question may arise on another Question, but I do not think that it arises on this.

Mrs. Slater: It does.

Mr. Amory: On the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, I repeat that account will be taken of all relevant considerations.

Mr. Shinwell: Is there any reason why the Cunard Line should be specially


favoured by obtaining a loan of this character at 4½ per cent.? Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to use this as a precedent so that other shipowners who are anxious to replace old vessels, instead of going to the finance houses and the banks for loans at 7 per cent. or 8 per cent., should have the advantage of the facilities which are to be provided for the Cunard Company?

Mr. Amory: I should like to repeat to the right hon. Gentleman what I have just said, and that is that the proposals are under examination and account will be taken of all relevant considerations.

Post-war Credits

Mrs. Castle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will amend the regulations on the repayment of post-war credits so as to enable them to be repaid to married women who would have qualified under the existing regulations if they had not exercised their right as married women to opt out of National Insurance.

Mr. Amory: I assume that the hon. Member has in mind married women who are sick but do not qualify for sickness benefit because they have opted not to pay National Insurance contributions. Repayment of post-war credits in these cases would raise a number of practical difficulties to which a satisfactory solution has not yet been found.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as in the Blackburn case which I recently sent to his Department, it is possible that women who have been sick for two years and longer and who, if they opted into National Insurance, would be classified as hardship cases under the new regulations are left without any help although their hardship is exactly the same? Surely this sort of case enables the Minister to make a clear and objective test of hardship which is the one which he has said he has chosen for his new plan. Will not he reconsider the matter?

Mr. Amory: No. The hon. Lady wrote to me and I considered the matter very carefully. But, as I explained to the House before, in deciding the degree of hardship which would justify the early repayment of post-war credits we have to depend on clearly definable categories. I am aware that among the chronic sick

there are many people whom we cannot cover because we cannot bring them into a clearly definable category. I have looked at the matter very carefully and I am afraid that what I have said holds good. We should depend here on the rendering of medical certificates which vary very much, and we could not get the necessary uniformity.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will arrange for claims for the apportionment of post-war credits between husband and wife to be entertained outside the time limits laid down in the statutory regulations in those cases where the wife is later separated from her husband.

Mrs. Emmet: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make arrangements whereby claims to apportionment of post-war credits made outside the prescribed time limit will be accepted in cases where the husband and wife have been divorced or are legally separated.

Mr. Amory: In future, claims to apportionment of post-war credits will be accepted outside the time limit from wives who are divorced or legally separated from their husbands in cases where the full credit has not already been paid before the apportionment is made. They will then be able to obtain repayment of their part of the credit when they satisfy the conditions.

Mrs. Castle: I think that I can thank the right hon. Gentleman for that rather complicated Answer. May I ask him whether it covers the two Blackburn cases which have been submitted to his Department in Which wives who have been separated from their husbands for four years and are now trying to get their share of post-war credits made over to them have been refused repayment even after appeal to the Minister? In view of the very important evidence which I have put before the right hon. Gentleman, does this mean that he has now changed his mind and that they will get their money?

Mr. Amory: I should like to assure the hon. Lady that there is no snag in this. I think that she has reason to thank me, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mrs. Emmet) will also thank me. I should


like to underline that this is a change in procedure. It will apply to wives who are divorced or legally separated where the post-war credit has not already been paid to the 'husband. If it has been paid already, there is nothing more we can do about it.

Mrs. Emmet: While thanking my right hon. Friend for the change, which will be very helpful, may I ask him whether he can do something about the very outrageous case which occurred in my constituency where the post-war credits earned by a woman were paid to the woman her husband ran away with and subsequently married after a divorce? In this lady's words, the Treasury
has paid out my money…to someone who, both on moral and legal grounds, has no right to it".
Surely this is an outrageous situation and the Treasury should not be able to allocate someone else's post-war credits in this way.

Mr. Amory: This is just like ladies. I have been nice to my hon. Friend, but she wants me to be nicer still. I am afraid that I cannot help her in the case which she has mentioned, as I understand it, because I believe that the amount has been paid to the husband and, therefore, there is nothing more to pay. Otherwise if a case is covered by the phrase "divorced or legally separated" it looks as if a payment will be due. Perhaps my hon. Friend will get in touch with me again on this matter.

Mrs. Emmet: I thank my right hon Friend very much.

Rural Industries Loan Fund Limited

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give details of the public money made available to Rural Industries Loan Fund. Limited, in each year since 1955, and of the amount of interest charged.

Mr. Amory: This Society is financed by means of grants and loans from the Development Fund. No interest is charged on the Development Fund loans. With permission, I will circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hughes: Is it not the case that under the Labour Government no

interest whatsoever was charged but that now interest is being charged at 5½ per cent.? Would not the right hon. Gentleman consider reverting to interest-free loans so that these small rural industries may be assisted in areas of high unemployment?

Mr. Amory: No, Sir. To the best of my knowledge, interest was charged under the Labour Government by the Society. Interest is not being charged by the Development Fund to the Society. I think, therefore, that the position is the same. If it is not, I will write and let the hon. Member know.

Following are the details:


DEVELOPMENT FUND ADVANCES TO RURAL INDUSTRIES LOAN FUND LIMITED


Year
Grants
Loans





£
s.
d.
£


1955–56
…
…
5,653
9
4
20,000


1956–57
…
…
236
0
0
28,500


1957–58
…
…
—
—


1958–59
…
…
—
5,000


1959–60
…
…
—
—



£5,889
9
4
£53,500


The total amount outstanding on 31st March, 1960 was £248, 500.

Government Expenditure

Mr. Hirst: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he now proposes to take to exercise a tighter control over the level of Government expenditure.

Mr. Amory: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reminded the House on 30th June that decisions on Government policies involving expenditure, like all other decisions, are the collective responsibility of the Government. I would refer my hon. Friend in detail to what I said on this subject in my Budget statement and when moving the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. I would also remind him of my statement at the end of last month about the programme of expenditure on investment in the public sector.

Mr. Hirst: That is all right as far as it goes, but is my right hon. Friend aware that no one is less happy than I that he has not been as successful in this field as he has in so many other parts of the


economy? Will he undertake to consider with his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister what additional machinery can be evolved to ensure that there is a maximum level of expenditure in the economy and that expenditure does not rise in leaps and bounds, thereby either preventing worth-while reductions in taxation or a cut-back in investment?

Mr. Amory: I think it is unlikely that my hon. Friend and I will find ouselves in complete harmony on these matters. I think that on some of them the best thing that my hon. Friend and I can do is to beg to differ. I have made it perfectly clear that the increases in Government expenditure which have been approved to date have, in the opinion of the Government, been essential to fulfil the policies which have been repeatedly approved both by our party and by the nation at large.

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to visit the People's Republic of China.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I have no plans for visiting the People's Republic of China.

Mr. Stonehouse: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether he would welcome an invitation? Is he aware that such a visit would open up and expand British exports to a market comprising 25 per cent. of the world's population and that he could as a result of such a visit well act as a peacemaker between China and the new Administration in the United States?

The Prime Minister: I am, of course, gratified by the hon. Gentleman's approval of what I try to do, but visits need careful timing and I do not honestly feel that this moment is the right one.

UNITED STATES AIRCRAFT (BASES, UNITED KINGDOM)

Mr. Healey: asked the Prime Minister to what extent it is his policy to permit the continuation of weather flights by U2 aircraft from Lakenheath airfield.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Prime Minister (1) whether, in discussing

with President Eisenhower a revision of the understanding regarding the use of United States bases in this country, he will take into account the changes in nuclear strategy since 1951;

(2) when President Eisenhower confirmed with him the understanding on the use of the United States bases in this country arrived at in October, 1951, by Earl Attlee and President Truman and confirmed in January, 1952, by the right hon. Member for Woodford and President Truman.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he will now require the United States Government either to give an undertaking to cease violating Soviet territorial sovereignty by reconnaissance flights by British-based aircraft and to accept British control over every United States aeroplane initiating a flight from bases in the United Kingdom, or to remove all United States bases from this country;

(2) why he assented to the United States R47 reconnaissance bomber taking off from Brize Norton Royal Air Force airfield for the flight which ended with it being shot down over Soviet territorial waters on 1st July.

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Prime Minister under what conditions United States reconnaissance aircraft are allowed to operate from the Royal Air Force Station, Brize Norton, and other Royal Air Force airfields.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of recent happenings, he proposes to continue his policy of allowing United States armed forces to occupy bases in this country.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Prime Minister, in view of the widespread concern in this country resulting from the disclosure that a United States aeroplane based on this country was shot down whilst flying over or near Russian territory, what action he has taken to prevent such flights by British based United States aircraft.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if, in his negotiations with President Eisenhower on the future use of United States bombing bases in Great Britain, he has placed before him an account of the possibilities of explosions


of hydrogen bombs over this country, as described in White Papers on defence and civil defence.

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the new arrangements that have been reached with the Government of the United States of America regarding flights by United States aircraft from bases on British territory.

The Prime Minister: The understanding relating to the use by United States forces of bases in this country in an emergency has often been referred to in the House. It was first reached between Mr. Attlee and President Truman in October, 1951, and was confirmed in January, 1952, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford and President Truman. It was confirmed again with President Eisenhower's Administration in March, 1953, when Sir Anthony Eden visited Washington as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
That understanding relates in terms to the use of the bases in an emergency, which is, after all, the most important aspect of the problem. But, of course, ever since the United States Air Force returned to this country in 1948 at the time of the Berlin airlift, there has been consultation between the two Governments at various levels about all sorts of matters concerning the bases. On some matters, for example finance, there have been written agreements. On others it has seemed better to rely on ad hoc discussions in the light of changing circumstances. In general, I think all this has worked well; but, as I told the House on 12th July, I have taken up with President Eisenhower the question whether there should be any modification or improvement of these arrangements in certain particular respects. Discussions are proceeding in Washington at official level and are making good progress. I hope that officials will soon be in a position to make recommendations to their Governments.
It remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government to permit the use of bases in this country by United States forces, for I believe that this arrangement is in the common interest of all.

Mr. Healey: Is the Prime Minister aware that there will be wide agreement

in the House that a much more precise agreement between the United States and Britain is required to govern the peacetime use of these bases? But there will be very little understanding in the House why Her Majesty's Government should have waited this long time before seeking to regularise the matter. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer the Question on the Order Paper regarding the use of Lakenheath base for U2 flights? In particular, will he clear up the persistent confusion between himself and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Air, who maintains that the U2 flights admitted to have taken place were concerned with secret intelligence, whereas the Prime Minister wrongly informed the House last week that they were innocent weather flights?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has misrepresented me. I did not make, and would not have made, any change in the policy, which has been followed by all Governments, of not making statements on matters of intelligence, or which approach intelligence. However, in a supplementary question the point was raised as to some evidence which had been given before the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee and I undertook to look into the matter. I considered the evidence and pointed out—and I quoted it—that it referred to weather flights and not to flights over Soviet territory.

Mr. Healey: I studied with great care the evidence which the Prime Minister was kind enough to send me. Is he aware that, in the first place, there is no reference in it as to the direction of these flights? The flights are simply referred to as weather flights by Mr. Dryden, who also referred to the flight of the U2 aircraft brought down in Sverdlovsk as a weather flight. It was the unanimous agreement of the American Press in reporting Mr. Dryden's evidence that it was clear that he had no idea of the precise function of the U2 aircraft which had been assigned to the N.A.S.A. Is it not also clear that the Prime Minister has not the slightest idea of what these aircraft were doing?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman attached so little weight to


the evidence given to the Senate Corn-mince, I do not know why he quoted it. I quoted it because I thought it was courteous to do so as he had made reference to it. Otherwise I would have stood on time-honoured practice by not referring to it in detail. As to why it has taken so long to regularise the arrangements, this form of flights has been going on for twelve years. They have been from time to time adjusted and ad hoc arrangements made, as I have already said. Again, as I have already said, I think that it is always right to see whether we need to improve them and reconsider them, or to make changes in our mutual arrangements in the light of present circumstances.

Mr. Warbey: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the question of changes in nuclear strategy since 1951? We were then dealing with atom bombs, whereas now we are dealing with hydrogen bombs capable of annihilating the entire country in an hour or two. In addition, the present American nuclear strategy is based on the conception of multiplying the number of targets so as to draw the enemy's fire, with this country having the function of providing one of the targets. Does this not alter the situation?

The Prime Minister: Of course, the situation has altered, and is continually altering. We must take account of all relevant facts. This kind of reconnaissance flights—I shall not say U2 flights, for they were not in existence—have been taking place by both the United States and the British Air Forces for at least twelve years. These flights are perfectly legal and are in international air space. I want to make that perfectly clear.
The House knows the views of the hon. Member. He does not want to have American bases here at all. It is an understandable view, but the mass of the House and of the people regard the American alliance as an essential part of the safety of the free world.

Mr. Zilliacus: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer Question No. 46? Will the new agreement include an obligation on the part of the United States to observe the prescriptions of international law, and the obligations of the United Nations

Charter, in our relations with the Soviet Union? Will there be a prohibition in the new agreement against violating the air sovereignty of any country for any purposes by flights initiated from this country?

The Prime Minister: That does not arise, because President Eisenhower has stated that these over-flights will not take place. I do not think I want to use such strong words as "new agreement". I want to see whether we can bring the existing operations, either by the main understanding, or from time to time agreed methods, into close harmony and closely related to the serious factors which have developed in the world today.

Mr. de Freitas: Since all the flight plans are shown to the Royal Air Force, will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions that any flight plans which show a flight near Soviet territory are brought to the attention of Ministers?

The Prime Minister: I understand from what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air said that flight plans constitute a procedure chiefly connected with the requirements of safety and identification as planes come in and out of this country. That is the main purpose of the plans. This whole question will be reconsidered in my discussion with the President. I take note of what the hon. Member said.

Mr. Rankin: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many bases in the United Kingdom are being used for these U2 flights? Is he aware that the Prestwick air base is the nearest to Moscow? Can he say whether the American base there is being used for these flights?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is confused. The main purpose of these Questions was about the RB-47 flights. Only one airfield, as far as I know, had the other form of aircraft.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that in fairness the Prime Minister ought to know that my Question—— [Interruption.]—It is only
fair—

Mr. Speaker: I cannot hear what it is. Let us hear it.

Mr. Rankin: It is only fair that the Prime Minister should know that my Question was put down before the flight he referred to.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Dodds: The Prime Minister made great play, when last he answered this question, of the fact that many of the objections come from those people who do not want American bases here at all. Is he aware that I have spoken to many responsible people who are appalled, as a result of evidence that bas emerged, that the Prime Minister knows very little about this matter, and that one slip could be a disaster for the British nation? In view of that, and the evidence that also is available, there are many people who doubt that any American politicians will be able to control successfully the American military machine, and as a consequence there will now be more doubts than ever as to the value of the American bases here. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it will be up to him to convince them that he will get some form of control that will keep our fate in our hands and not in American hands?

The Prime Minister: I have taken note of the hon. Member's views, which he expresses with his usual force. But I do not think that his premises are correct. I will try, in the statement which I shall now make, to take some of these matters further.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Did the right hon. Gentleman believe, and does he now believe, the statement to the world by the State Department in Washington about the flight of the aircraft which was shot down over Sverdlovsk? Is he aware that the world now knows that the Americans told a thumping lie about this business? Is he also aware that last week he made a contemptuous reference to the N.U.R., but that the N.U.R. is a far more responsible body than the Cabinet that went into war over Suez?

UNITED STATES RB47 AIRCRAFT

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now make a statement.
I told the House on Tuesday last that I would make a further statement about the incident of the United States RB47 aircraft as soon as Her Majesty's Government's reply to the Soviet Note of 11th July had been sent off.

Reply to Soviet Note

Her Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow delivered our reply this morning. The text was as follows:

Her Britannic Majesty's Embassy present their compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and, on the instructions of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, have the honour to refer to the Ministry's Note of the 11th of July in which it is alleged that, on the 1st of July, a United States aircraft, based on the territory of the United Kingdom, violated the State frontier of the Soviet Union and was shot down over Soviet territorial waters.

The United States Government's Note to the Soviet Government of the 12th of July states clearly that the United States aircraft in question was never less than about 30 miles from Soviet land territory. In these circumstances, it appears that the allegations contained in the Ministry's Note under reference were based on false premises and that the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has no ground for protesting about events which took place on the 1st of July.

On the contrary, the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics bears a heavy responsibility for the action of the Soviet pilot who shot down the United States aircraft in international airspace. Her Majesty's Government view with the utmost seriousness this unprovoked attack, which illustrates the danger implicit in the present instructions to the Soviet armed forces.

Her Majesty's Government cannot agree that the use of United Kingdom territory by the United States Air


Force for legitimate operations in international airspace can in any way be regarded as aggressive action, and accordingly cannot accept the allegations contained in the Ministry's Note.

This Note set out Her Majesty's Government's formal position and I thought it right that we should make a definite reply to the charges made by the Soviet Government. At the same time, I did not feel that we could leave matters there. The trend of events since the failure of the Summit Meeting has been disturbing and I felt that I should make an effort to represent to Mr. Khrushchev what the British Government, and, I believe, the whole British people, feel about the situation.

Personal Letter to Mr. Khrushchev

Accordingly, in addition to the formal Note, the Ambassador delivered a personal letter from me to Mr. Khrushchev in the following terms:

I am sending you separately a formal reply to the Note from the Soviet Government to Her Majesty's Government which was delivered by Mr. Gromyko to Sir Patrick Reilly in Moscow on the 11th of July concerning the shooting down of a United States aircraft. This reply sets out clearly the position of our Government in this matter; but I feel that I must, in addition, write to you personally about my anxieties as to the way in which the world situation is developing.

I would like to remind you of the conversations which we have had from time to time when we have both agreed to seek methods by which the underlying tensions in the world could be reduced. When I had the pleasure of being your guest in Moscow last year I think we succeeded in setting in motion a sequence of developments which appeared to have great promise. My visit to you and the subsequent interchange of visits and frank discussions between the members of the proposed Summit Conference made me hopeful that when we came to the Summit Meeting we would make, if not a spectacular advance, at least some forward movement.

It is not necessary now to go back upon the reasons why the Summit con

ference was broken up before it really started. I still feel that it would have been better had you been willing to put other difficulties aside in order to pursue the major purpose for which we were to meet. All acts of intelligence or espionage on either side are, after all, symptoms, not causes, of the world tension which we should both seek to reduce. However, I took some comfort from your statement that when the dust had settled we might be able to take up again the task.

Since then, however, a number of events have occurred which have made me less hopeful. First, the action of the Soviet delegation in leaving the Committee of Ten on Disarmament at a moment when new United States proposals were, with your knowledge, about to be presented. As I told you at the time, I deeply regretted that you should have found it necessary to bring this Conference to an end, in my view prematurely.

Now we have the new incident regarding the United States RB47 flight. Our formal Note, to which I referred in my opening paragraph, gives the reply to the accusations against the United Kingdom in this matter. But I feel I must add that, even if the facts had been as stated by your Government, I do not think the Soviet authorities should have taken so grave an action and one so calculated to turn the incident into a major international dispute.

Then there comes the question of the Congo. I have read the statement which you have distributed which accuses Great Britain, in concert with the United States, France, Belgium and West Germany, of organising a conspiracy to destroy the independent State of Congo. I must ask you, Mr. Khrushchev, whether you really believe such a conspiracy is likely in view of the policies which British Governments of all parties have followed not only since the last war, but for many generations.

For more than a century it has been our purpose to guide our dependent territories towards freedom and independence. Apart from the older independent countries of the Commonwealth, since the Second World War


India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Ghana, Malaya, comprising over 510 millions of people have, with our help, reached the goal of independent life and strength. We have aided this process both by our technical assistance and by generous financial contributions. All these States are completely independent members of our free Commonwealth association.

Nor is this movement at an end. In October this year, Nigeria, with its 35 million people, will be another great independent country. Sierra Leone will become independent in April, 1961. The West Indies Federation is moving rapidly in the same direction. And so the process goes on.

I ask you, Sir, can you really believe that a Government and a people who have pursued these policies so consistently and so honourably are engaged in a conspiracy to destroy the new independent State of Congo?

But my purpose in sending you this personal message is not to debate in detail the individual issues which have lately arisen between us. Rather, it is to express to you my deep concern over what now appears to be a new trend in the conduct of Soviet foreign policy.

As I think you will agree, I have consistently welcomed and have given much weight to your assurances of the Soviet Government's desire for peaceful co-existence and detente in international relations. I have shown my sympathy with such purposes. It is, however, my firm opinion that these objectives cannot be successfully pursued without the exercise of patience and restraint. Much of my present anxiety derives from the fact that these elements seem to be absent from recent manifestations of Soviet Government policy.

I write to you now so plainly because I have the memory of our frank discussions with you in my mind. I simply do not understand what your purpose is today.

If the present trend of events in the world continues, we may all of us one day, either by miscalculation or by

mischance, find ourselves caught up in a situation from which we cannot escape. I would ask you, therefore, to consider what I have said and to believe that I am writing to you like this because I feel it my duty to do so.

We cannot disguise, and we have never attempted to disguise, the fundamental differences on political, social and economic questions which divide your country and your associates from our country and our Allies. Nevertheless, in the nature of things we are united by the fact that both our people and yours want to live their lives in peace and to build something better for their successors. I have always hoped that if we could have followed the path which we seemed at one time to agree upon we could have made progress to this end.

That concludes my communication, issued this morning. I would only add that I hope that the House will feel that this statement does represent the general feeling in this country. We are not to be separated from our Allies by threats nor unduly worried by propaganda. At the same time, we have a deep desire to see the present tension in the world relaxed. But if this is to be done all sides must co-operate to minimise, and not magnify, incidents which must Inevitably arise in the present sad state of the world.

Mr. Gaitskell: I feel confident that the House as a whole, and the country generally, will warmly welcome the statement made by the Prime Minister. I think that he was right to speak frankly to Mr. Khrushchev about these recent developments in Soviet policy, but I consider that the language he used was reasonable and courteous and I can only hope that Mr. Khrushchev will respond in the same spirit. I feel, as Leader of the Opposition, that I should make it plain that I think that the country as a whole agrees entirely, particularly with the concluding paragraphs, with the Prime Minister's statement.
At the same time, I would like to ask the Prime Minister one or two questions. Would he not perhaps also consider—and I do not expect a detailed answer


now, of course—what positive contributions we in particular, and the West in general, might make towards easing the situation! Would he consider, for instance, intimating to the Soviet Government that we are not in any way opposed to the proposal that they made that China and India should be invited to take part in any future top-level discussions?
Secondly, on the earlier part of the statement, regarding the RB47 aircraft, while in no way condoning the shooting down of the American aircraft over the open sea, if, indeed, that is what occurred, may I ask whether it is really wise that American aircraft, or, for that matter, British or Allied aircraft, should fly so near to the Soviet frontier? Would we really feel completely undisturbed if Russian aircraft were spotted 30 miles off the British coast? Would the American Government be so indifferent if a Russian plane were observed 30 miles from the coastline of the United States? In all honesty, I am bound to say that I think that both Britain and America would be deeply worried by an event of that kind.
May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has seen the statement of the United States Air Force Chief of Staff that American bombers are sent near Russian radar screens not only to keep the Russians aware that the United States Air Force is continuously taking full precautions to counter Soviet preparations for war, but to keep Britain and the other allies in good heart by actively demonstrating that the United States deterrent force is always on the alert? Would it not perhaps be a good idea to intimate to the United States Government that we really do not need any encouragement of that particular kind`?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman said, and for the spirit in which he met what I felt was at least some attempt to break through the situation which has developed and is developing. I will, of course, consider the special points that he has made.
With regard to what one might call reconnaissance of this kind, the right hon. Gentleman probably knows the major purpose for which it is carried on, of course by both sides. It is the fact

that these flights are carried on by both sides; by the Soviet Government as well as by ourselves. In addition, as the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, the Soviet trawler fleets are constantly at sea in close proximity to our territorial waters, and are fitted with electronic and technical equipment for the purpose of testing the radar and intercepting radio transmissions. They are always patrolling where British or N.A.T.O. naval exercises are taking place. If, by some international agreement, we could reduce this, that would be another thing, but I honestly feel that until that happens we must protect the efficacy of the only methods we have of defence by all legitimate means.
On the other wide issues which the right hon. Gentleman raised, of course I will consider what he said, and I would only like to thank him and the House generally—the matter has given me great concern—for the reception of what I hope might be of some value, but, at any rate, will perhaps help to make us feel more conscious of the part that we have tried to play together with our allies.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: In view of the admirable terms of my right hon. Friend's letter to Mr. Khrushchev, is there not a possibility that the Royal Air Force, which, under my right hon. Friend's wise guidance, would be more responsive to the diplomatic situation, could take over from the United States the rôle of aerial reconnaissance?

The Prime Minister: No. The Royal Air Force is the finest air force in the world, but I will not accept, and do not accept, these criticisms of our allies. We must be very careful on the position that we take, and I would like to emphasise the words that I used at the end of my statement when I said, and I believe it to be true:
We are not to be separated from our Allies by threats…
We will work with them, and together, for any purpose which might be helpful in this situation.

Mr. Mason: Is it not a fact that provocative flights these days need not be overflights, in view of the development of side-screening radar photography whereby aircraft can fly along a frontier and take photographs many miles inside


alien territory? Is it not a fact that these flights themselves are provocative though not violating national air space? Will the Prime Minister say whether he agrees with the Americans that these provocative flights should continue, and whether the Royal Air Force has been responsible for this type of reconnaissance? Further, can he give instances of whether the Russians have been guilty of this type of flight?

The Prime Minister: These flights and these movements by sea are perfectly legal under international law. I would not say that they are provocative; they are intensely annoying. We rather dislike seeing the trawlers hanging about to see what they can pick up of our methods, but they are legal, and, under international law, we have no right to drive them away or arrest them, and certainly not to sink them. Whether we can reach another step together for the reduction of this is a matter that must have regard to international, legal and technical points of view.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Earlier the Prime Minister referred to American flight plans being given to the Royal Air Force for the purpose of security in leaving and entering British territorial space. Could not a closer liaison be brought about between our allies and the Royal Air Force by having more senior liaison officers, and the British authorities being brought more into the picture to ensure that there is no misunderstanding?

The Prime Minister: In considering whether we can improve our methods, when these programmes are agreed I will consider whether there should be more detailed and more senior control.

Mr. Grimond: Was the Prime Minister's letter agreed generally with our allies, and is it a prelude to a new Western move to reopen negotiations with the Soviet Union?

The Prime Minister: No. It was delivered in Moscow this morning, to be released at half-past three. I informed our principal allies and Commonwealth Prime Ministers about it, and sent them copies of what I proposed to do.

Mr. Healey: In his statement the Prime Minister made a distinction which I think everybody in the House regards

as of the utmost importance, namely, the distinction between reconnaissance activities which are legal under international agreements, and reconnaissance flights which violate international law, such as the penetration of another country's air space against its will.
Will the Prime Minister try to understand that what I think causes great disquiet not only on this side of the House, but on his side, is that British bases may be used for the violation of international law by reconnaissance flights of the U2 nature without the British Government having the slightest idea of what is going on? This is an issue to which, in spite of everything the Prime Minister said in his Note, we attach the very greatest importance.

The Prime Minister: I quite understand that, but since President Eisenhower has declared that they will no longer take place, I do not think it is of the greatest practical immediate importance, although it is a point to be considered. I must add, I am afraid—and we are all grown-up people here—that a lot of things are done by both countries which are not legal. All espionage is, in a sense, a breach of international law. So far 18 leading agents from the Soviet bloc have been expelled from this country. These things go on.
As I tried to show, I think that they are the symptoms of this tension between the two sides. If we had been more fortunate, and if we are fortunate again in trying to take measures to reduce this tension, I think that activities of that kind fall into a different place. They may continue, as they always have, but they do not have the same alarming and disturbing effect if the state of tension is somehow meanwhile reduced.

Mr. Gaitskell: Without disagreeing with what the Prime Minister said, would he not agree that there is a considerable difference between the more ordinary acts of espionage and air flights which can lead to the very serious dangers of war? Will he follow up the suggestion he made that we might perhaps reach some agreement which would enlarge the distance from the frontiers of the various countries concerned over which air flights would be permissible?

Mr. Paget: The right hon. Gentleman has appealed to the Russians in terms


of sweet reason. Can he recall any instance in which that sort of appeal has ever been successful with the Russians? In his letter to Mr. Khrushchev the right hon. Gentleman said that this incident might have had serious consequences. Several of our allies were murdered and others kidnapped, and there have been no serious consequences. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the way to negotiate with the Russians is to let them get away with this, or does he imagine that we can negotiate with them successfully only if they have at least repatriated the men they have kidnapped?

The Prime Minister: I am well aware that in these negotiations there must be a combination of absolute firmness and standing loyally with our allies in every way and never allowing a weakness in our own side, but, at the same time, showing good reason, good sense and a willingness to reach agreement, if it is possible. Nor must we forget that it is not only the Russian Government and people to whom we must direct our attention; it is also our own allies, the many uncommitted countries of the world, and the many neutral countries.
I cannot help feeling that it is sometimes worth rebutting allegations made against us and giving the true story to the independent people of our own Commonwealth and Colonial Territories, set out not only for our own people, who know it, but for the many hundreds of millions of people all over the world who

do not always hear our side. Although one is tempted to shrug off propaganda, it is sometimes wise to reply to it, if one can do so with dignity and propriety.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. Various questions have been put to the Prime Minister on the assumption that the whole House agrees that his Note should go to Mr. Khrushchev without a similar Note being sent to the President of the United States. Some of us believe that we should have had an opportunity of dissociating ourselves from this action unless a similar open letter is sent to those whom we believe to be the provocateurs in the United States.

Mr. Speaker: It is very difficult to know when questions should cease on occasions of this kind, but the hon. Member will have to bear with my best efforts in the matter—and that includes not permitting him to make a speech on the subject now, because I have no power to do so.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): On Thursday, after consideration of the business already announced, we hope to make further progress with the Charities Bill [Lords], which there was not time to complete last Friday.

WALES (HOSPITAL SERVICE)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House takes note of the Report on Developments and Government Action in Wales and Monmouthshire for 1959 (Command Paper No. 961).—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Pearson: It will be known to most of those interested that the task of opening this debate today falls somewhat fortuitously on me, and is not due to any special knowledge I have of the National Health Service. It seems somewhat appropriate that the first part of our debate today should be on, hospitals. We can thoroughly prepare the hospital services for any casualties that might arise from the hotter atmosphere that will be engendered in the later debate on the Welsh Broadcasting Council. I beseech you, Mr. Speaker, not to think that I am inciting my hon. and right hon. Friends in any way. Be assured that the Celtic temperament is cool under provocation—although on this matter I fear that you may not agree.
For the first time the day given to the consideration of Welsh affairs in the House has been supplemented by the establishment of the Welsh Grand Committee, whereby we have been provided with useful additional scope for surveying in greater detail matters within the Report on Developments and Government Action in Wales and Monmouthshire. In the three sittings of the Welsh Grand Committee we have debated matters covering employment and industrial development, rural Wales and education. This new procedure has given us opportunities for greater concentration upon the various aspects of matter affecting Wales, and it has met a need.
Our thoughts today are upon the advancement of health, referred to in Chapter V of the Report. This is the purpose of the National Health Service, which is a real part of our national life. It is knit up with numerous activities in the general medical services, the hospital service and the prevention of illness. Within this framework there is a greater power and opportunity to spread the benefits of medicine and direct them to the best purpose.
This pattern, this great power and this opportunity to bestow a more effective health coverage on the people, owes much to the weight of character, the splendour of talents and the unceasing devotion of our late Parliamentary colleague, Aneurin Bevan. The National Health Service will ever be his true memorial. I am sure that as we proceed with this debate every heart will be filled with concern for the grief of his widow at his passing and the calamity which we all feel as a result of the absence of a distinguished voice that is stilled.
A change has taken place in what we mean by health. We desire not only clinical study and treatment, but planning and work for health as a positive aim. Education in the arts and sciences goes forward in a thousand and one ways, but with it must be allied a knowledge of right living and the learning of citizenship, because health and welfare are indivisible. All the services are vital, be they hospital, mental health, local authority, general practitioner, pharmaceutical, dental, nursing, eye, social insurance, housing, water and sanitation.
There is always the urgency of establishing the right priorities, so that all considerations should be properly balanced. It is dawning upon us, perhaps too slowly, that the best and cheapest of all health measures is prevention—absolute, or by treatment in the early stages. The next is prompt and adequate treatment in the home for all the cases that lend themselves to it.
The annual reports of the Welsh Regional Hospital Board have drawn our attention to the pattern of hospital development since 1948. I hope that the House will think it appropriate for me to refer to the retirement of Sir Frederick Alban, who was chairman of that board from its inception. He did a valuable piece of work—inspiring the whole service during a deeply formative period—which has earned for him a secure and lofty place in the annals of the hospital service in Wales.
Those who had the responsibility of handling and shaping development, amidst all sorts of difficulties, share the pride of many achievements, though much remains unfinished. On too many occasions, restrictions of priority and money won victory for the Government's old friend, "Make do and mend." Is


it not true in hospital expenditure that putting up new hospitals provides a great saving on the maintenance side, and gives deeper satisfaction altogether? Patching up old ones is rarely satisfactory.
I am glad to note that the 'hospital building programme in Wales is showing some tangible evidence of progress, yet how plain it is to see the real need for a thorough reconciliation of health policy, health expenditure and national expenditure in both the ordering and the administration of the service. The House knows how great is the difficulty of assessing and allocating the proper shares within the total resources and liabilities of the State. It is common knowledge to us.
Too often, when the Treasury faces financial troubles it is hospital expansion and the build-up of the health services that is the victim. We are at such a period at this moment, as is seen by the recent increase in the Bank Rate to 6 per cent. The consequent fuss at Cabinet level filled us with fears of what was to happen to the steady fulfilment of the needs of the hospital service. It was, indeed, a great relief when the Minister of Health announced that it was not expected that the hospital capital programme for next year would be affected.
After next year, no one knows. During the passage of the Finance Bill, there were ominous noises from the Government back benches indicating that Ministries dealing with social services are in deadly struggle against cuts, but I trust that the gains to society from the regained health of the individual, as well as the happiness won, will be kept to the forefront. Not even the Treasury has tried to assess the relative value to the community of a sick mother quickly returned in good health to her working husband and children.
The care and treatment of those suffering from mental disorders is an important part of a good system of health services. Most of us are conscious of the need to repair the omissions of the past, and to press for high priority to he given to that task. The new Mental Health Act reflects some welcome forward concepts, so that it is noted with interest that the Welsh Regional Hospital Board is taking steps towards the

reorientation of mental health away from institutional care and towards care in the community. But will the new mental health provisions for community care remain a dead letter?
How many of the local health authorities in Wales can at present adequately meet the added costs without a drastic change in their financial resources? In an editorial article in The Times of 12th July strong doubts were expressed about the effectiveness of the Minister's intention to have the whole of the Mental Health Act working by November next. That article said:
Unfortunately, his intentions, though admirable, are unlikely to be enough. The spirit of this legislation has been justly acclaimed, but it is by no means clear whether, when the Act officially comes into effect, it will in fact be operating in full or even nearly so. Particularly is it doubtful in the case of sections six to ten, which are the main ones to come into force this week.
That is, the week of 12th July.
The article continues:
They deal with services to be provided by local health authorities, and since the whole bias of the statute is in the direction of 'community' rather than 'institutional' care they are crucial…In May the Minister, reporting that he had received proposals for providing such services from almost all the authorities, explained that they showed an intention to develop them at a reasonable rate with the ultimate object of meeting all these.
That sounded promising, hut what do the 'intentions' amount to? There is still no sign that the Government have ensured that there will be adequate numbers of trained staff, such as psychiatric social workers, mental welfare officers, and health visitors available to cope with the increased responsibilities—either now or in the immediate future. Nor is there any evidence that local authorities by and large have carefully ascertained what the precise needs are going to be. Many hospital psychiatrists are saying that this is a wonderful opportunity for them to concentrate on acute patients and achieve a quick turnover in cases, but very few local authorities seem to be in a position to say how they will tackle the outflow of chronic and other cases that would result. What sort of care will they need? How many will live at home, how many in hostels? How many will be capable of doing work? That the authorities have by and large accepted the principle that something must be done is easier to believe than that they know exactly what it is.
The article adds:
Until we have the assurance of Mr. Walker-Smith that all the authorities know exactly what is expected of them and are doing it 'community care' will remain an unrealised ideal.


Whatever is the substance in the comment of The Times, some enlightenment as to the position in Wales will be welcome, as we on this side of the House are not prepared to see the new mental health provisions for community care remain an unrealised ideal. To state such is not unrestrained enthusiasm; it is plain commonsense.
Ready support will be forthcoming for immediate priority being given to the training of children up to 16 years of age, and the extension of facilities for the training of adults. Along with this goes forward, I hope, the training and recruitment of the staff for the development of advisory services for those living in their own homes. Can the House be informed of the number of training centres required to meet the needs in this field?
The House will expect a lively implementation of the new ideas in mental health work providing for the early return of patients to the community and the rehabilitation of patients who, until recently, have been regarded as permanent inhabitants of mental hospitals. Has the Welsh Regional Hospital Board a sub-committee planning this part of the service in close touch with the local health authorities and hospital management committees? Is there a true way for improvement by way of industrial therapy towards rehabilitation? Some local authorities, I know, have made good headway in this respect. Two or three of them are in Wales.
What impact will the new ideas have on the "severe overcrowding" of mental hospitals which was referred to in the 1958 medical services report for Wales? What is the present regional average overcrowding? Are forward planning proposals adequate to needs in this important aspect? There are no prominent signs of surging ahead in this vital field so as to provide first-class working conditions for doctors and nurses with up-to-date amenities and the pleasant therapeutic atmosphere for the patients.
I should like to see the provision of many more psychiatric out-patient clinics. That is the way to save later trouble and expense, for it has been shown that with early modern treatment a high proportion of those with

mental disorders quickly recover and return to society as useful citizen. Of course, the patient's family in this respect cannot be forgotten and in-patient hospital treatment, if considered preferable for the sake either of the family and other sick person, should be available.
I greatly doubt whether enough is being done to overcome the chronic shortage of mental deficiency beds. Admittedly, some improvement has taken place, but it is very sad to think of the helpless, bedridden low-grade children who have to wait years for a bed. There are unfortunate reactions on a family in such circumstances through worry, anxiety and health, when a helpless, low-grade child has to remain at home being nursed, perhaps, among three or four other children. May we have information about the waiting list position of this category of patient? I hope that we shall do our utmost in the direction of alleviation of the patient, the parents and the family.
I cannot pass over the existence of very heavy waiting lists for various speciality attention throughout the Principality. There must be something amiss when patients have to wait from one to three years for operational treatment. For instance, the ear, nose and throat speciality waiting list is extremely formidable. Adults have to wait up to three years and children waiting for tonsils operations have to wait for eighteen months to two years. Hundreds, nay thousands, have to suffer these very long delays before operations. Surely it is plain that consultant E.N.T. surgeon staffing needs to be strengthened. Concern is bound to be voiced about such an unsatisfactory situation. I charge those responsible and the Minister of Health with complacency on this important aspect of their work.
It may be suggested that there is a great deal of "dead wood" in the lists, but that does not explain the lengthy time which large numbers of patients 'have to wait. I therefore call for an assurance that additional consultant sessions in the hospital group areas which are suffering worst shall be established. In addition, energetic steps should be taken to institute E.N.T. departments in appropriate hospitals. I press for an adequate explanation of why


there is delay to the extent I have mentioned.
In the ophthalmology speciality the position is far from satisfactory. In hospitals outside Cardiff the city council has provided consultant sessions from Cardiff Royal Infirmary, which already has a tremendous burden in trying to cope with the waiting list in the Cardiff area. The waiting period in this speciality is from ten months to one year for an in-patient and up to fifteen months for an out-patient.
The same picture exists in the neurology speciality, where there is a waiting time of two years. I am compelled to make adverse comment on the general surgery speciality, where hundreds of cases have to wait from one to two years. There follows deep concern that defects of discipline and duty among some consultants—full time and part time—contribute to this very unsatisfactory state of affairs in the hospital service. How many consultant sessions are missed by consultants? What records are kept of such failures? Do the consultants get paid for a missed operation session? What steps are being taken to obtain reasons for missing a session? Is the matter allowed to pass without any comment or action whatsoever?
In this problem of waiting time, I understand, hospital management committees have made representations to higher authority with a view to having the position remedied. What is the reason for so little being done about it? They want more time to be allocated by consultants. Such a picture as this sets our teeth on edge at the apparent complacency which is being shown. What is the answer of the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to these criticisms? They have been brought to light only by the rooting away of "weeds" which, entirely without profit, suck the fertility of the service for greater good and more effective work.
Our voices need to be raised for greater provision for temporary admission of chronic sick patients to nursing homes so that their relatives might have a much needed rest. There is a scheme in operation, but I know of cases where great difficulty has been found in obtaining alleviation in this way. Likewise, a great field for good lies in convalescent rehabilitation and spa treatment for

patients. Is it too much to ask and demand a duplicate of the Park Nursing Home, Llandindrod Wells, for the Welsh Region? Will the Minister institute inquiries about the possibility of rendering financial help to Porthcawl Rest, for many years a valuable convalescent home and entirely run by voluntary contributions? I know that at present the governors are facing great financial difficulties in carrying on. It would be a tragedy if that convalescent home closed.
The importance of the geriatric service for the care and rehabilitative treatment of the elderly sick presses itself upon our attention. A close working link between the Regional Hospital Board and the local health authority is imperative for any marked impact on this somewhat sad side of the problem of the aged. Are we sure that a charge of being niggardly cannot be sustained? Many assert that the care of the chronic sick has been the Cinderella of the National Health Service. A sustained improvement is called for and an assurance passed on to the patients and relatives that behind the geriatric service is the fullest medical provision possible.
In provisions to meet responsibility for the chronic sick and elderly, I attach much importance to the local authorities who, in their health capacity, provide home nursing and domestic help, and other services, and who, in their welfare capacity, are doing a most heartening humane work in providing up-to-date residential accommodation. Good home nursing and domestic help are powerful aids to the aged in time of need. Let us be generous in maintaining as high a standard as possible in this sphere.
In surveying the needs of the sick, I cannot leave out the general practitioner service. I understand that if a hospital has not a bed empty and available, admission is refused and it then becomes the general practitioner's task to search elsewhere for help for his patients—a process which must be time-absorbing and tedious. How far do bed-finding bureaux exist in the Welsh Region? I know that there are some. Such bureaux need good and persistent staff, backed, as a final resort, by a medical referee with power to insist on the admission of the case somewhere in the area if the best service is to be made available. This type of help for the general practitioner would be of very great value. My


submission on this side of my remarks is that when faced with chronic infirmity—for men and women in the prime years of life as well as the old—the way is open for a big gain in the happiness and betterment of the people.
Anxiety about the recruitment of trained nurses is being repeatedly expressed. The provincial Press, the national Press and the local Press are continually referring to the needs of hospital management committees in respect of this weakness. Recently issued regulations covering the conditions of hospitals as training schools for admission to the general part of the Register of Nurses will, I fear, make it more difficult to combat the acute shortage of trained nursing staff. As from 1st January, 1964, general training schools will be approved only at hospitals with more than 300 beds with an average daily occupancy of 240.
For Wales, as I see it, these new conditions will mean a reduction in the number of training schools. Apart from the large hospitals on the coastal fringe of South Wales, East Glamorgan hospital will be the only training school in the valley regions, and probably extending the whole of the way northwards, including North Wales, excepting the possibility that there may be grouping of hospitals, say, in Bangor, for this purpose, and a training school at Wrexham.
Under the same regulations a minimum educational qualification for entry with effect from 1st July, 1962, will mean that the entry to nursing is confined to grammar school girls who have gained the General Certificate of Education. Am I right about that? I know that certain other students may also be admitted holding qualifications acceptable to the council, but does not this mean virtually—I hope I am wrong—debarring the secondary modern school girl from training? Experience shows that quite a number of girls in this category have made first-class nurses and have qualified quite as well as have those from the grammar schools. The effect of that might well be that the numbers who enter and pass out will be less than now, with resulting difficulties in staffing hospitals in Wales.
The recruitment of vital staff to various hospitals is often made difficult because applicants make it a condition that they will accept the post provided

that they can have themselves and their families properly housed. That is quite common. A solution of this stubborn problem for the hospitals, especially in the periphery, is urgently needed if good standard staff are to be engaged. There is a limit to any hospital management committee going repeatedly to the local housing authority for favours. Why not allow the hospital boards, in a wider sense than now, to build houses for the residential medical staff and other key personnel? It is an unnecessarily restrictive policy to withhold from hospital authorities the power to provide houses for their staff where it is deemed essential.
I have but touched the fringes of the complicated mosaic-like ramifications of the National Health Service in Wales and Monmouthshire. I am sure that my hon. Friends will touch on other important matters. Whatever hard things it has been necessary to say, I salute this great service, bless its purpose and its work and express thanks and appreciation to the men and women in every phase of its activities who serve the common weal so nobly. They are the health guardians of today, for whom boundless good will spins the great wheel of co-operative thought, action and skill to help to neutralise pain and to improve the general health of the community in the Principality.

4.39 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): I join with the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. A. Pearson) in welcoming this opportunity, when we are discussing Welsh affairs, of concentrating a fair amount of our time on the National Health Service in Wales, because there is a very satisfactory record of progress to relate. In saying that, I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that there is no complacency. We know that there is more to be done, and it is being done, as I hope to show in the course of my contribution.
Hon. Gentlemen are aware that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister's functions in Wales, except some limited ones relating to supplies, audit and superannuation, are delegated to the Welsh Board of Health. This is in accordance with current Government


policy to delegate administrative responsibility to Wales and to the Welsh people.
The medical and professional staff of the Board has been strengthened to equip it to deal with the developments in health and welfare services. In view of the considerable extensions of local authority welfare services, the House will be glad to learn of the appointment to the staff of the Board of a qualified social worker.
The Welsh Regional Hospital Board has a membership of 32, of whom 22 are lay members and 10 are professional—.that is, doctors, dentists, nurses, and so on. The policy has always been integration of service, and we are anxious to make this integration even closer and encourage co-operation between statutory bodies, local authorities, and voluntary organisations.
It is perhaps appropriate for me to give the House, first, some information about some of the main items of the local health authority service. I start with maternal and child care. I shall not take up time by giving figures, but comparative statistics for 1948 and 1959 show that there has been a considerable improvement during this period. The maternal mortality rate is now comparable to that of England and Wales. though in infant deaths the rates are higher than in England and Wales. Improvement in these rates has been accomplished more slowly in Wales than in England and Wales as a whole.
I can record developments in this part of the Health Service. Premature baby units have been established in maternity hospitals, and local health authorities have made special transport arrangements for these infants. In certain areas the authorities have taken the clinic facilities to the mothers and children by operating mobile clinics. During 1959, eight new clinics were brought into use, and work is expected to start in 1960–61 on the provision of 14 clinics, 12 of them in newly constructed premises. The figures of attendances of mothers at the clinics, which from 1950 tended to decline, are now increasing.
The hospital confinement rate in Wales is not far short of the 70 per cent. which was recommended by the Cranbrook Committee, but a review of hospital services is in hand in the light of the recom

mendations of that Committee. Although the average rate of hospital confinements is relatively satisfactory, there are areas where more beds are needed—for example, Cardiff, Newport, and Merioneth. The current hospital building plans have been designed to relieve these shortages.
The hon. Gentleman said that good home nursing could be a powerful help in the care of the sick, particularly the elderly. I agree entirely. There have been improvements in domiciliary services. There has been a great increase in the care of the elderly by the amount of time devoted to these cases by health visitors. On home nursing itself, which has expanded rapidly, the service is being increasingly devoted to the needs of the elderly.
Poliomyelitis deserves special mention in this debate, because the figures for Wales are rather better than those for England and Wales, but there are still many adults who have not come forward for vaccination, despite the fact that the vaccine is available to general practitioners and that local health authorities are running lunch hour and evening clinics and are taking the service to factories and works. The response from expectant mothers is particularly disappointing, especially as the vaccine provides a measure of protection for the unborn child. In the two years 1958 and 1959, 87,142 babies were born in Wales, but only 17,654 expectant mothers were vaccinated.
The Report says, in paragraph 262:
The most significant development in the health field in 1959 was the passing of the Mental Health Act…
The Minister issued a direction in August, 1959, that local health authorities should make arrangements for the prevention of mental disorder and care and after-care of persons suffering from mental disorder. This was followed in October by a further direction requiring authorities to submit to him by 1st April, 1960, their proposals for making these arrangements. Thirteen schemes have received the Minister's formal approval and a further three will be dealt with immediately on the expiry of the statutory period for objections, leaving one scheme only still to be submitted—from Glamorgan.
In their proposals authorities have set out their intentions to provide


training centres for the mentally subnormal, hostels for those in need of such accommodation but not requiring admission to hospital, home training and visiting, as well as day centres and social clubs. Of the proposals already put into effect I mention only the new training centres opened at Hafodyrynys, Monmouthshire, in October, 1959; at Barry, Glamorgan, in April, 1960; and at Swansea in March, 1960, bringing the total number of centres in Wales up to 16, providing 1,057 places.
A further centre is under construction at Ystrad Mynach, Glamorgan. [Laughter.] Hon. Members can correct my pronunciation later. I have tried very hard. Approval has been given to the erection of a centre at Malpas, Newport, at an estimated cost of £82,000. Approval has been given also to the acceptance of a tender for the erection of a hostel for mentally disordered girls at Bridgend, costing £29,000. Further schemes are planned to start this year for training centres at Ammanford, Wrexham, Bridgend and Merthyr Tydfil, and for two further hostels in Glamorgan.
From this extension of facilities will come a further improvement in the proportion of persons capable of receiving training who are attending training centres. At the end of the year 459 mentally disordered children were receiving training at a centre out of 779 suitable to do so. For adults the figures were 441 and 1,079 respectively.
Generally, authorities have not been deterred by the difficulty at this stage of assessing the future community care needs of their areas and have prepared schemes that will allow them to develop their services according to the demands arising.
The Anglesey County Council, in conjunction with the Nuffield Provincial Trust, has embarked upon a survey of the mental health requirements of a rural area, and the results are awaited with interest by rural authorities everywhere. There is great promise in Wales of a speedy development of this important new service.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd asked me specifically whether this service will remain a dead letter. He quoted from the leader in The Times.

The fears of the hon. Gentleman are not justified. I am happy to inform him and the House that consultations with local authorities began more than twelve months ago. Local authorities have been very co-operative. A good start has been made, as I hope that the figures and details I have just given indicate. Obviously, though this will develop progressively, progress so far has exceeded expectations, and I am confident that a good service will eventually emerge.
In another aspect of local authority welfare services—namely, old people's homes—again, there has been improvement. The number of beds, expressed as a percentage of the population, is slightly higher for Wales than for England and Wales as a whole, although the proportion of the over-65s is rather lower in Wales than it is for England and Wales. I was surprised to learn that. I thought that the Welsh people stayed in the valleys, but it is a fact that there are more beds and proportionately less people to be cared for in this age group.
Welsh local authorities are now providing accommodation for 2,615 people in 91 small homes, which is the ideal way, we believe, of caring for old people. Seven of these homes are in new buildings, specially designed for the purpose, the remainder being provided by the adaptation of existing premises. Five new buildings are under construction providing accommodation for 188 people and a new home is being adapted for 24 people. The building of two homes for 95 more will start shortly.
Plans are also in hand for nine more homes in Caernarvonshire, Abergele, Maesteg, Pontypridd, Tredegar, Blaina, Pembrokeshire, Cardiff and Newport. The demand for residential accommodation has made it necessary to keep in use a number of former institutions, including some shared between welfare and hospital services, but in nine instances it has now been possible to discontinue these arrangements. Twenty-three former institutions remain in Wales, providing accommodation for 1,520 people.
Most of the institutions used exclusively for Part III residents have been modernised to bring the accommodation more into line with present conceptions. In the others, early cessation of use is


expected as major building schemes are developed and planned. Capital expenditure on old people's homes is currently running at the rate of £540,000 per annum compared with £105,000 in 1949–50.
The figures for the family practitioner services, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, show a welcome increase in the number of doctors practising in Wales, with a corresponding reduction in the average number that each doctor provides with medical services. There has also been an increase in the number of doctors working in partnership, from 601 doctors in 1952–53 per cent.—to 915 in 1959–71 per cent.
The number of dentists in Wales has decreased from 522 in 1951 to 420 in 1960. The shortage of dentists is one which affects both Wales and England, but it is slightly more acute in Wales, where there is one dentist to 5,476 people compared with 4,200 for England and Wales. In view of the pressing need for more dental surgeons, first priority will be given to the dental school and hospital which will form part of the new Medical Teaching Centre for Wales. it is hoped that by 1964, in the first yearly intake, 50 dental students will begin their clinical training. In spite of the small number of dentists, the number of courses of treatment completed and emergency cases has increased steadily each year.
On the question of hospital services, perhaps I might refer to one or two minor points which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. As to training centres, this was a recommendation of the General Nursing Council, and as the hon. Gentleman correctly stated the new condition is to apply from 1st January, 1964. There is nothing to prevent some of the smaller hospitals combining to achieve the total of 300 beds which will qualify under the new regulations and, in addition, the General Nursing Council has assured my right hon. and learned Friend that it will consider sympathetically the position of existing schools which have special difficulties in complying by that date. The Council has made clear that that consideration includes geographical difficulties which may be met by some schools in Wales.
The Regulations provide that girls from a certain date will need a minimum standard of education which is to be

equivalent to two passes at O level of the General Certificate of Education, but, in addition, the Regulations provide that equivalent education can be counted for the admission of girls. Perhaps I may repeat to the hon. Gentleman, who was so concerned, a comment I made when I was putting the Regulations before the House. Among the papers given to me was one of the test examination papers. I did all the questions myself and I found that with my council school background I could answer them. I was glad about that, because I felt that it would not stop any good girl from entering the nursing profession.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Could we be told what two subjects at ordinary level are considered absolutely necessary for this examination?

Miss Pitt: English and one other—I cannot remember the other. [HON. MEMBERS: "Welsh."] Welsh in certain cases, by all means.
The hon. Member asked me, too, about houses for staff. There is nothing to prevent the regional boards buying houses. There is the power which would enable them to buy houses for staff where there is need and that has been done in some cases in the Welsh areas, but I would stress that that need would have to be balanced against other pressing needs of the service because it is all part of the current capital allocation.

Mr. A. Pearson: Is that in urban as well as rural areas?

Miss Pitt: The power is there if the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue a particular case. The hon. Gentleman said that the hospital services programme was showing tangible evidence of progress. I am glad to have that tribute from him. In fact, the numbers of beds allocated have increased from 1949 to 1959 by 6·6 per cent. compared with 1·5 per cent. for England and Wales. Patients treated have shown a marked increase in the same period—45·4 per cent.—and waiting lists, which the hon. Gentleman specifically asked me to comment on, have been reduced by 25·5 per cent. in the same period compared with a reduction of 4·4 per cent. for England and Wales, so there has been a quite striking reduction in the waiting lists in Wales. The picture is one of steady increase in


beds and considerable improvement in the use of beds—eight patients per bed in 1959 compared with 6·1 in 1949. This turnover obviously shows a better use of the beds.
The substantial new building programme in Wales will soon begin to have its effect and show further improvements. I want to stress that this will be all over Wales and not in just the main centres. There is, however, room for still further improvement in Wales in the use made of existing beds, and the attention of the Regional Hospital Board has been drawn to the great importance of using existing resources to the fullest effect for the relief of waiting lists and the reduction of waiting time. Great emphasis has been laid on the development of outpatient services and this is also a feature of the new building programme.
The expansion of the consultant services continues and a comprehensive service is now provided. There are still deficiencies to be made good, particularly in psychiatry and geriatrics, but progress here is governed mainly by the supply of suitably qualified and experienced people. One striking point about the consultant services is that there has been a considerable increase in domiciliary work. This is especially marked in psychiatry were domiciliary visits have increased by no less than 344 per cent. comparing 1949 with 1959.
The hon. Gentleman stressed that point and said that the use of psychiatry in the early stages was most valuable in keeping people in their own homes, and he referred to preventive treatment and adequate treatment in the home. I agree with him and I am glad to learn of this considerable improvement. We all realise the value of early consultation which means a tremendous improvement in the results which can be obtained.
The major building programme now in hand will see the provision in the next few years of modern, fully-equipped acute hospitals in each major population centre in Wales. Those areas for which plans have yet to be announced are north-east Wales and the northern part of Monmouthshire. The Hospital Board is at present considering the siting of new hospitals for these areas. The increasing capital allocation for hospital building in Wales has not only made it possible to start many more schemes both large

and small, but also to enable a number of the major schemes to be speeded up.
The Aberystwyth and Bridgend schemes were originally planned to be developed in stages and are now being completed under one contract. The second stage of the new Swansea hospital and the last stage of Glangwili Hospital are now both twice the size originally contemplated.
The architectural competition for the design of a new University Hospital of Wales, which was launched in 1959 jointly by the United Cardiff Hospitals and the Welsh National School of Medicine, which attracted forty entries, has now been decided. The design, which has attracted a great deal of attention, provides for a hospital of 650 beds, a medical school, a dental 'hospital and school, out-patients and casualty departments and ancillary accommodation.
A particular feature is the complete integration of the teaching departments and the hospital units and it will provide for Wales a University Hospital of which 'it may be justly proud. I am very happy to give the House this piece of information. The Minister has agreed, in principle, that this hospital may be built under one contract instead of in stages, as was first envisaged, provided, of course, that this does not delay the building.
The features of the mental 'hospital service are the great increase in voluntary and informal admissions and the reduced average length of stay. These factors have contributed to the reduction of pressure on the hospitals. Development of outpatient services and more early treatment 'have also contributed to this greatly improved state of affairs. Welsh mental hospitals have been well to the fore in the developments in treatment and care which have made possible the new look in mental health.
In particular, the Welsh Hospital Board is to be congratulated on its foresight in devoting such a substantially higher than average proportion of its capital resources over the years to the modernisation and improvement of its mental hospitals.
The problem of the mentally subnormal was one of the most acute facing the Welsh Hospital Service in 1948. There


was an acute shortage of beds and waiting lists were formidable. A substantial building programme has produced in the past five years, 200 beds at Cwmbran; 187 at Conway; 150 at Ely Hospital, Cardiff; 40 at Hensol Castle, near Cardiff and 33 at Caersws. The completion of the hospitals at Cwmbran and Conway will provide another 550 beds and this, together with the development of the local authority community services, promises early relief for those remaining families in Wales subjected to the strain and stress of the care of a mentally subnormal person. Waiting lists in Wales have already been reduced by 19 per cent. since 1956 compared with the England and Wales figure of 5 per cent.
A survey of hospital facilities available for the chronic sick was carried out by the Department in 1954 and showed that bed provision is 0·9 beds per thousand of the population, very much bellow the existing average for England and Wales which was then 1·27 beds per thousand. Since then, additional beds have been made available, bringing the rate up to 1·14 per thousand of the population. Building schemes now in hand, or planned, will further increase facilities by providing geriatric units at acute hospitals, or, more indirectly, by allowing for the diversion of beds from other specialties.
The provision of additional hospital beds is not, however, the complete answer in the case of a socio-medical service whose needs are bound up with the question or the provision of housing and domiciliary services, and the provision of residential accommodation in homes for the aged. The aim of the geriatric service is to provide early care and rehabilitative treatment for 'the elderly sick. This is best achieved by close co-operation between the hospital and local authority services, as we have indicated. The Welsh Hospital Board has reached the conclusion that one of the ways of furthering this highly desirable measure of co-operation is by the joint appointment by the Board and local authorities of consultant geriatricians. As the Report shows, some appointments here have already been made. In fact, the figure is now three, though the Report shows two, and others are in hand.
I have tried to set out the position fairly, showing the improvements, and there are many, and not attempting to conceal need where it exists. There is much to be done. In this debate no doubt hon. Members will draw our attention to the various local deficiencies with which they are familiar. Everything cannot be done at once, but the general picture is one of substantial progress in all health matters with a steadily increasing tempo—more and better hospital beds, more consultants, doctors and nurses and rapidly improving domiciliary and community services and a substantial effort in the case of the elderly which will soon begin to have a marked effect and a constantly improving statistical health pattern.
My first visit to any hospital since my new appointment as Parliamentary Secretary was made in South Wales last October. In such a visit one tries to do so much and I made a point of talking with every patient in every bed that I could see. The result is that I have some kaleidoscopic impressions but the topmost impression was the progress and the drive going on and, above all, the devoted service of those who were helping to operate every branch of the National Health Service.
Sometimes in these old hospitals—there is one in the constituency of the hon. Member for Pontypridd—the physical nature of the buildings was not good, but the care was extraordinarily high. I loved going round the wards and talking to the old people. One old gentleman—well in his eighties, confined to his bed but still interested—I discovered was keen on horse racing. We discussed form together. He asked, "Are you married?" to which I replied, "No, are you offering for me?" His answer was, "Ah, and I might think about it at that."
There was also the old man who insisted on singing the hymn to me that he sang to matron every Sunday morning. These may be isolated instances, but this is what the Health Service really is—people. I was glad to find this very high standard of care and to know that it was being given. I hope, with all hon. Members from Wales, that that progress will continue and expand as I am sure it will. Wales can show a very proud record in health matters, and I am glad


to have been able to give details of some of it today.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: If charm and a valiant effort to master the Welsh language were necessary attributes to persuading us that all was well in the Health Service in Wales the Parliamentary Secretary would, indeed, have succeeded. But the cold facts present a very different picture. Although all of us salute those within the Health Service who give themselves to the care of the sick and aged, we should be failing in our duty if we showed any diffidence in criticising all those aspects of the Health Service where, in our view, some very serious gaps are revealed.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the infant mortality situation in Wales. Anyone Who, as a parent, has been touched by the hazards of prematurity and toxaemia, must be aware of the fearful anxiety that arises from childbirth. To lose a new-born babe after months of expectancy is a bitterly cruel blow. I was brought up to believe that life was man's greatest blessing, and there is surely no greater sin than to treat the boon of life as if it were some trivial gift. But who can dispute that the persistent and regularly grim infantile mortality rates of Wales are being accepted, as they have been today, with an extraordinary degree of complacency?
I do not see in the infant mortality rates in Wales—if I may adopt the phrase of the Parliamentary Secretary—a satisfactory record of progress. Naturally, I think first of my own constituency. This year we have grim figures indeed. Pontypool and Blaenavon had an infant mortality rate in 1959 almost three times the English figure. The Monmouthshire figure has gone up from 25·8 in 1958 to 27·2 in 1959. There are constituencies with conditions clearly calling for the closest attention, and they exist both in industrial and rural areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. 0. Davies) has often spoken of the position in his own constituency where we find there is a perinatal rate—that is to say, a rate based upon the deaths under one week, plus stillbirths—per thousand live births

of 56, whereas the perinatal rate for England is 34.6. That is a measure of the seriousness of the situation. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) is full of disquiet at the position which exists in Caernarvonshire which has an infantile mortality rate of 35. Of course, the figures have improved over the years nationally, and we expect them to do so in Wales. They have improved at a greater pace in countries outside England and Wales, as we know from the recent figures applicable to Scandinavia and the Netherlands.
The question that we in Wales are asking is: why is it that after years and years, the gap between the English national average and the Welsh national average of perinatal deaths, instead of closing, is widening? Those are the statistics. How can one dare to have complacency in the face of a situation like this? What we need to do is to translate these percentages and to realise how many deaths have resulted. The fact is that if the English figures had been achieved in Wales in the post-war years 6,000 children and 150 women would be alive today, and we are entitled to ask why they are not alive.
When we put the question to the consultants, to the Regional Hospital Board or to anyone in Wales we get diverse answers. One is told, as we have been told by the Regional Hospital Board, that these figures are probably due not to medical reasons but to social and economic reasons. I have heard it said that there are congenital reasons. A very distinguished professor of obstetrics in Cardiff, Professor Duncan, recently said:
Women who are having babies now are women who were born during the time of the depression. With a thing like reproduction, we are dealing with a previous generation and this time lag is very important.
Let me tell the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary that we in Wales are not prepared to allow the sins of Tory Governments in the 1930s to be visited on the babes of Wales in the 1960s.
We are confident that there is a method by which we can genuinely find out the reasons for the persistence of this rate which is chronic. We ask the Government to make some effort to discover what are the real reasons. We require


—indeed, we do not ask; we demand—that fund; shall be put at the disposal of the National Health Service in Wales to enable pilot experiments to be undertaken, so that we can inquire in the grim areas of Carmarthenshire or Merthyr and there have a survey by teams of investigators, doctors, social workers and sociologists who could tell us where the fault lies. We are not content to allow the situation to remain as it is. We are asking that, at least, surveys should be carried out to give us some of the answers to these questions about which there is confusion and complexity in the minds of leading consultants in Wales.
If we do not know all the answers, we certainly know some of them from the Cranbrook Report. That Report made it clear that
The practice of obstetrics requires special skill and experience. There is not enough domiciliary maternity work available to enable every general practitioner to obtain and maintain the necessary standard of skill.
The expert evidence given to the Cranbrook Committee urged that only a general practitioner in group practice should undertake midwifery, and that if he did so his general medical list should perhaps be limited to 1,500. There are in Monmouthshire and Newport at this moment 50 doctors with lists of almost 3,500. Doctors with lists of this size cannot possibly give obstetric care. Those in medical circles in Wales, although surrounded by a conspiracy of silence because they do not want to criticise their own colleagues, know that it is impossible with lists of that size for adequate obstetric and antenatal care to be given to the mothers of Wales.
We are asking that the obstetric lists should be reviewed immediately. The sooner the lists are cut down and confined to doctors who satisfy a proper criterion of skill, the safer the mothers will be. A general practitioner not on the obstetric list who provides maternity medical services to a patient on his list is paid five guineas instead of seven guineas. I say with a full sense of responsibility, knowing as we do these large lists which exist in Wales and the fantastic number of doctors who have managed by some method or another to be on the obstetric list, that babes are being murdered in Wales at two guineas a head.
If we have a special problem with the infant mortality rate, and if we have a legacy from the 1930s there, we also have a legacy from the 1930s so far as old age is concerned. We have special problems of the aged sick. The Parliamentary Secretary quoted some statistics which surprised her. But if we ignore South-East Wales, in every other area of the Principality Wales has a higher proportion of old folk above 65 than any other region in the kingdom. I would have expected, therefore, that the Regional Hospital Board would have met this challenge—a challenge which affects 300,000 people in Wales.
I would have thought that the Boucher Survey of Services to Chronic Sick and Elderly, published in 1957, would have jerked the Board out of its complacency. I direct the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to that Report. There, hospital statistics reveal that Wales was almost the worst region in Britain, having the lowest but one number of beds per 1,000 population over 65, having almost the lowest bed turnover and providing the lowest number of consultant sessions to the old folk of any region in the Kingdom. Now in 1960, in Wales, our number of geriatric beds remains well below even the national average figure of mid 1954.
We need hundreds more beds, and even more, in my view, we need more geriatric consultants. We have no consultant geriatrician in Cardiff, East Monmouthshire, Newport, West Wales, Mid-Wales and Mid-Glamorgan. At the moment, there are the three who have been mentioned, but there are none throughout Wales; yet we all remember the words of the Boucher Report, which said:
Where a trained geriatric consultant was in charge, and particularly where he had reasonably adequate medical assistants and ancillary staff, the bed turnover was remarkably good.
We are doing by omission what Hitler did by commission. We are killing the aged. If the turnover of beds is not "remarkably good", but bad, as the figures show that it is in Wales, it means that the turnover is not from hospital to home, but from life to eternity.
If we have special difficulties with the young and the aged, I say that of all the features that could be said to be worst in Wales. it is the present position of


psychiatry in our country. The Government, the Welsh Regional Hospital Board and the National School of Medicine must all bear responsibility, in my view, for the fact that the mentally sick in Wales are being deprived of the full opportunities that contemporary psychiatry can offer.
Again, let us look at the statistics. Whereas in England overcrowding in mental hospitals is 8 per cent., in Wales, where we have one-third or one-half of the beds in the whole service in mental hospitals, overcrowding is 14 per cent. It is even 25 per cent. in some places in North Wales, and we need more than 1,000 beds to reach the standard that has been laid down officially. Why is it that in London, in the north-west Metropolitan area or the south-east Metropolitan area, overcrowding has ended? Why is it that, in the face of this need, over the last ten years the Regional Hospital Board has spent less than the national average of its capital expenditure on mental hospitals? Why is it that, although at this moment in Wales, 11,000 of the psychiatric beds are occupied by mental patients, not one of the fifteen consultant advisers to the Regional Hospital Board, who determine so much of its policy, is a consultant psychiatrist? Why has the Department failed miserably to create an adequate number of consultant psychiatric posts? To bring us on a population basis to parity to England, another ten consultant posts should be created immediately and another eleven S.H.M.O. posts.
If the Parliamentary Secretary believes that there is a need, when we are dealing with mental defectives, to get at the problem quickly, I would ask her to look at the position regarding child psychiatry in Wales. There is not one fully qualified child psychiatrist in the Health Service available in the whole of Monmouthshire. There is not one in Mid-Wales, and there is not one even in the capital city. One of the greatest Welshmen of this century was Dr. Ernest Jones, the man who brought to the whole of the Western world from Sigmund Freud, the greatest Jew of this century, in Vienna, the whole science of psychoanalysis. It is a miserable commentary on Wales that it can do so little to pay

homage to that great man that, even inside the university itself, there is no chair of psychiatry.
We know how the Regional Hospital Board values the effect that a chair of psychiatry would have on its medical school. In 1949, the Board says that it made representations to the University of Wales for the establishment of a chair in psychiatry. In June, 1950, ten years ago, the Board was informed that the University was in favour of establishing a chair. In January, 1951, the Board again asked the University. It asked again in September, 1954. It is still asking, and it is still waiting.
The position is, and the people of Wales ought to know it, that—at a time when they are talking of a National Health Week or a National Health Year or Mental Health Year in this country—in Wales, more than the public, it is, above all, the Welsh National School of Medicine that needs educating. It is a sin against 11,000 patients in our mental hospitals in Wales that the establishment of the school—so many of whom we recall hated the introduction of the National Health Service—fail to give any adequate psychiatric training to its students. The medical graduates of Wales are psychiatrically illiterate, and it really is not good enough.
The Welsh nation should know that the advances that are being made by way of drugs, electro-therapy and psycho-therapy in the field of mental illness means no longer that a sojourn in a mental hospital is a sentence of life imprisonment. They should know that Government parsimony and sordid medical intrigue is preventing bringing back to rationality many of those in Wales now lost in their bizarre private world.
The Parliamentary Secretary spoke with some optimism about the effect of the new Mental Health Act in Wales. The Mental Health Act in Wales will be a complete farce. The after-care services are quite inadequate, even in the very shadow of the medical school at Whitchurch Mental Hospital, there is not one qualified psychiatric social worker to aid the discharged. We have only to look at the numbers of the psychiatric social workers we have in Wales to realise how impoverished is the whole mental care service. Until the University
s

of Wales has a chair and department of psychiatry where students and postgraduates can take a diploma in psychiatric medicine, until it has a department of social administration, there is absolutely no hope of attracting or training an adequate supply of psychiatric social workers to aid the discharged patient to re-orientate himself to the outside world.
Meantime, we shall continue to have the terrible casualties we have in Mid-Wales. I doubt whether the grim figures which we have in the Mid-Wales Mental Hospital can be repeated up and down the country. This year, more than two out of three patients admitted are discharged patients who have once again broken down. That is the type of comment we have to make on the position regarding after-care in the whole of central Wales.
I should like now to speak of something the effects of which all of us see in our own constituencies. It is the position regarding industrial injuries. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), at a meeting of the Grand Committee recently, drew attention to the figures of industrial injuries in Wales. vis-à-vis any other part of the country. He quoted a figure this year of 8,500 men and women who were idle because of industrial injuries, while in London and Middlesex, which has three times the population of Wales, there were half the number of industrial injuries. That figure is not an eccentric figure, if one looks at the figures month after month, because we see that in April last Wales had 7,600 cases, while London and Middlesex, with three times the population of Wales had 2,600.
It is not an eccentric thing to do to compare Wales with London and Middlesex, but let us compare it with Scotland, which has approximately twice the population of Wales. Whereas the figure for industrial injuries in Wales is about 8,000, in Scotland it is 8,700, which reveals the price that our people have to pay for their dependence upon heavy industry. We do not need the reminder of Six Bells to know haw severe are the effects of industrial injuries in Wales. We are therefore entitled to ask the Government what they are doing about industrial rehabilitation. All we have got is one industrial rehabilitation unit

serviced by a part-time doctor who belongs to general practice. Is it not right that, at least, we should have what Scotland has got? In Edinburgh, there is a residential unit, and in this country there are others at Leicester and Egham. Is not that the least that we should have in Wales, in view of these severe figures?
What we really require in Wales is something far more comprehensive, a system of rehabilitation and assessment centres located near general hospitals. We need rehabilitation units which would include occupational workshops as part of the hospital service, apart from industrial workshops which would be part of the industrial rehabilitation services of the Ministry of Labour. Adjacent establishments of this kind would make it easy to allocate rehabilitees to the type of therapeutic activity most suitable for them and to provide specialist services, in particular, psychiatric services, which would be readily available for the rehabilitees.
In my professional life, I sometimes see the industrially injured 12 or 18 months after their accidents. There is nothing more terrible than to see the mental deterioration which comes upon men when they know they are of no use. In my experience, there is nothing more sad than to see how family relationships are poisoned as a man begins to feel that he is useless. I urge that more consideration should be given now to the needs of physical medicine in Wales so that, at least, a serious attempt can be made to match our effort to the pressing, clamorous needs of the industrially injured of our country.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the new hospital in Wales, the hospital which is to be erected as the medical teaching centre at Cardiff. She spoke of it with pride, saying that it was attracting a great deal of attention. It has indeed. It has attracted attention from every young architect in Wales who has been horrified by the plans which have been produced. I am not surprised. We have already suffered from some of the effects of architectural establishment in Wales. We have the monstrous beehive desecrating the civic centre of Cardiff which houses the Welsh College of Technology. When the most important assessor of the committee is responsible for that desecration, I am not surprised at the result which has come about.
This is not a personal predilection of mine. I direct the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to last month's issue of the Architects' Journal and I ask her to read what is said about the hospital building there. The fact is that the hospital is just what one could expect from this miscegenation; out of the architectural-medical establishment of Wales, we have produced an architectural abortion. The Architects' Journal, speaking of the assessors, says that they
have done little /o further hospital planning
in this pedestrian scheme, adding that no new
trends in hospital planning are evident in the winning designs".
The Journal goes on to say, speaking of the elevations, that they
show an absence of architectural character and a lack of cohesion among the various buildings.
We are spending £8 million. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box) would, at least, want a beautiful building in his constituency. More important even than the æsthetic aspect of the matter, there is grave disquiet that this school is becoming a glorified cottage hospital. Most of us here are concerned with the peripheral needs of Wales. We are not concerned with puffing up the egos of the part-time consultants of Cathedral Road who want more and more beds in the hospital. We are concerned that the hospital should be properly serviced with adequate research laboratories and adequate research staff. Anyone examining objectively the present plans of the hospital cannot but come to the conclusion that there has been a battle for beds but there has been little battle to ensure that we build a hospital which will be worthy of the 1970s instead of the outmoded medical traditions of the 1950s.
I have spoken harshly, but we are dealing here with human life, and I do not think that I have exaggerated the case. Each one of us has a duty to see that there is no complacency in the service. There is a division between hon. Members on that side and on this. We on this side believe in public expenditure even if it must result in increased taxation, and we are not afraid to say so. In Wales, where we have,

largely, a Socialist society, we appeal to the Government to be prepared to spend more money so that we can have a better-equipped hospital service throughout Wales, so that we can have considerably more consultants and bring ourselves up to parity with England. We have suffered enough from the Tory legacy of the 1930s and we want to march forward genuinely into the 1960s.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Many of us on this side, I think, will feel that it is quite proper to view the shortcomings of the National Health Service with great concern, and I would certainly support the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) in searching out and finding a remedy for the defects which have emerged in it. I really cannot accept, however, that any good purpose is served by speaking in such exaggerated terms as he did, comparing our attitude towards the aged with the attitude of Hitler. I cannot conceive of anything more unrealistic or more unfair to the many people who have devoted great energy and earnest attention to this problem. It is quite unwarranted to make any such comparison.
Again, I do not doubt that the hon. Member has powerful views on the important subjects to which he addressed himself, but it was most unworthy of him to speak about the Welsh National School of Medicine in such improper terms, protected by the immunity which we enjoy in this place, and to suggest that the authorities of that medical school need educating because there may, perhaps, be some defects in one aspect of our medical services. A case could equally well be made to show that in other directions the Welsh National School of Medicine has been a pioneer. Indeed, some of the services we have in Wales are, perhaps, ahead of what people in other parts of the United Kingdom are doing. While I would agree with the hon. Member that we should make criticisms and that we should direct them to the best of our ability, I think that he served no good purpose in speaking in such exaggerated and, sometimes, I felt, unworthy terms.

Mr. Tudor Watkins: Has the hon. Member seen the plan?

Mr. Gower: I have not referred to any plans. I am referring to the hon. Member's remarks about our treatment of the aged and to his remarks about doctors and others in the Welsh National School of Medicine.

Mr. Abse: Does the hon. Member dispute that there is no psychiatric education given to the medical students of Wales? Does he not think that it would be more worthy of him that he should give greater consideration to the mentally sick of Wales rather than to the consultants of Wales? Does he not think that he should put greater emphasis upon the needs of the old instead of trying to protect the medical establishment of Wales?

Mr. Gower: I have not denied that there may be defects, and I have agreed with the hon. Gentleman and said that I approve of criticisms being directed to them, but what I complain about is his wildly exaggerated statements.

Mr. Abse: Exaggerated in what way? What statistics have I misquoted? What figures that I gave are wrong?

Mr. Gower: I am referring to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that our attitude towards the elderly is comparable with the attitude of Hitler. It is not at all comparable. He should know perfectly well that people are living longer in this country than ever before. Indeed, this is one of the great problems which face most modern communities. People are living longer, and it is to the credit of all those who have done so much not only in hospitals but to improve the standard of living in many countries of the world that this problem has now come to assume great importance.

Mr. Abse: Has the hon. Member read the Boucher Report? Does he dispute that, if one has consultant geriatricians, one can achieve a quick turnover and that, without consultant geriatricians, there is no turnover? If one has no turnover, does not that mean that, by omission, people die? Am I not justified in speaking in anger when that is the result?

Mr. Gower: The hon. Gentleman is trying to evade the point. I have said that I fully agree that some criticisms can be made.

Mr. Abse: Does the hon. Member read the Boucher Report?

Mr. Gower: I have agreed that, in some respects, there are important defects, and, further, I have said that the hon. Gentleman is right to do his best to draw attention to them. What I said was that, at the same time, I deprecated and denounced the manner in which, in some respects, the hon. Gentleman did it.
I wish to stress one point with which, perhaps, the hon. Gentleman will agree. I have no desire to protect any medical establishment—medical men are well capable of defending themselves—but it is a fact that in other fields the school of medicine to which the hon. Gentleman referred has been a pioneer and that in many branches of health in Wales it can be said that we are considerably ahead of some other parts of the country.
That comes, I admit, from our peculiar industrial position. I agree with the hon Gentleman that there are special problems in an area so dependent on very heavy industry in which people are likely to contract certain diseases. As a result of that position we have a larger number of industrial disabled. I support what the hon. Gentleman said about the great need for tackling this problem. It is also because we have this special problem that our advance in the treatment of pneumoconiosis and similar diseases is probably rather further advanced than in other parts of the United Kingdom. Therefore, we may say that our progress in some directions, or lack of progress in other respects, is connected with the nature of our economy and our industry.
At the same time, it is also true that our defects in the past were probably due to the fact that voluntary effort in Wales, in the formative years of the last century, did not, perhaps, in some aspects achieve so much as the voluntary effort in some other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Watkins: Say that in Barry.

Mr. Gower: I did not differentiate between particular regions of Wales. I said that in some cases it may well be that voluntary effort in parts of England achieved a greater advance than in parts of Wales. There is nothing to be ashamed of in making such a statement.


I do not think that my part of the country is always right. The hon. Gentleman is trying to express a quite ludicrous argument.
For that reason, there is the fact that the leeway which the Welsh Regional Hospital Board and the National Health Service in Wales had to make up was correspondingly greater than that in England.

Mr. Abse: Mr. Abse  indicated assent.

Mr. Gower: The hon. Gentleman agrees. I am not trying to establish any strange theory. I think that it is one based on the facts.
It is natural, of course, that we should tend to judge the quality of hospital and general medical services by our experience of them either as individuals or as Members of Parliament, or even in both capacities. Our experience in Wales will certainly tend to differ—and this is true of elsewhere—according to the area in which we live or the constituency which we represent. As I said before, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that in assessing the virtues and achievements of our services it is very important—and I think my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will accept this—that we should not overlook any defects and shortcomings.
Superficially, of course—and more than superficially, as my hon. Friend pointed out—the achievement of the Health Service in Wales, now in its twelfth year, has been impressive. At the end of 1958, as my hon. Friend reminded us—that is now about eighteen months ago—and as we learned from the Report on Developments and Government Action in Wales for last year, there was something like 214,000 in-patients Who had been treated in Welsh hospitals during the year. This represented a 43 per cent. increase over 1949. Beds available for use in 1959–28,000 or so—represented an increase of 4,000 over 1949, and the number on the waiting lists, to which my hon. Friend referred and which in 1949 totalled 37,000, had fallen by 11,000 to 26,000 in January last year.
As my hon. Friend also mentioned, in the same ten-year period out-patient attendances in Wales had risen from 936,000 to 1,800,000 or so. The Welsh Digest of Statistics, in its fifth issue pub

lished in May last year, showed that while the total number of doctors on the list in Wales had risen—again as my hon. Friend pointed out—from 1,093 to 2,091 and the average number of paients had fallen, our figure generally was not nearly so good as that in other parts of the United Kingdom.
If I cannot quote with equal precision the present figures it is because the part of this year's Report on Developments and Government Action dealing with health is not so adequate. In all seriousness, it is one of the worst parts of the Report, the least adequate and the most poorly documented. Indeed, it is not nearly so good as the part devoted to health in last year's Report.

The Rev. Llywelyn Williams: Cannot the hon. Gentleman make the obvious deduction that the previous Report was dealing with the whole ten-year period? The last Report dealt only with the year immediately preceding.

Mr. Gower: That may well be the main reason, but, even allowing for that, I think that the part of this year's Report dealing with health is otherwise still one of the least satisfactory parts of it. It contains less information, and there are one or two notable omissions with which I will deal later.
I should like my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to compare the section dealing with health with some of the other sections of the Report. While acknowledging the gradual improvement which has occurred in hospital waiting lists, I should like to express, as did, I believe, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. A. Pearson), some concern at the cases of delay in certain instances. I have had such cases brought to my notice, cases where the family doctor has emphasised the need for early treatment or for early operation.
On occasion, as, doubtless, other Members have done, I have had to bring such a case to the attention either of the local hospital committee or, indeed, to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. I confess that I have been most impressed by the manner in which such cases have been taken up by the hospital authority or by my right hon. Friend. But the point that I want to make is that in some of the cases brought to my notice it seemed to me that it should not


have been necessary for them to have been so brought to me and that, indeed, it was obvious from the facts placed before me that the persons concerned should have been in hospital receiving the treatment thought necessary by their doctors.
These, of course, are the more urgent cases. While I recognise that in some cases delay is almost inevitable, I hope that very great care will be taken not to have urgent cases included among those which have to go on the waiting list. I hope too, that when my right hon. Friend replies to the debate he will be able to give us fuller information about the extent of progress made in the actual waiting list during the last eighteen months or so. I am not quite sure whether my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave the latest figures --if she did, I apologise—but—recognize, as do other hon. Members, the limit of the availability of beds and, in some cases, the shortage of trained nurses.
I now turn to hospital building. I am certain that the House was impressed by the figures given and by the extent and quality of some of the new buildings. It is certainly encouraging to note that there is to be a major scheme for Caernarvon and Anglesey General Hospital at Bangor involving sixty-four beds, operating theatres and an outpatients' department. It was very gratifying to note what my hon. Friend told us about the new hospital at Singleton Park, Swansea, and the manner in which it has been pushed ahead, and the new hospital at Cwmbran in the constituency of the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), with 200 beds and the necessary services. These things are encouraging. I have also been impressed by the references in the Report to the improvements carried out at various hospitals, such as those at Wrexham, Neath and in my own constituency at Barry.
However, I have an impression that the problem of building new hospitals or of building extensions is being tackled with greater energy than the problem of using beds which are now becoming available in hospitals because of the changing pattern of disease. There is, for example, the decline in tuberculosis. I realise that tuberculosis and similar hospitals are not always sited in the best positions for use to be made of them for

general purposes, but some of them are and I hope that their facilities will be used and that steps will be taken soon to make the fullest use of them.
There is another notable omission from the Report. I think that the hon. Member for Abertillery (The Rev. Ll. Williams) is interested in this matter. The Report tells us little or nothing about the recent progress of dentistry in Wales. In the previous Report a year ago our attention was drawn to the shortage of dentists in Wales, which was then much more severe than the shortage in England. In January, 1959, the ratio of dentists to patients was 1:4,000 in England and 1: 6,000 in Wales. Moreover, 40 per cent. of the Welsh dentists at that time were over 60 years of age against 28 per cent. in England. I believe my hon. Friend gave us a figure for this year in this connection and that it represented a very slight deterioration even in that situation. Consequently, the position regarding dentists in Wales is one of the most serious problems that we have to face. I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friend will consider the matter very carefully indeed, and perhaps he will be able to say something about it when he speaks later.
There is one other remark that I should like to make about dentists and dentistry. This may have a United Kingdom application as well as being of importance in Wales. Arising out of the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration, a decision will have to be made about the basis upon which dentists are to be remunerated. Undoubtedly, some notice may properly be taken of average performance and average time schedules. In the case of dentistry there may be very serious dangers indeed in pressing these considerations too far. Much of the work of modern dentists is essentially operative in character, resulting in continuous strain through long periods of the day. Dentists who work comparatively slowly may nevertheless perform invaluable work. Their work must be almost indispensable in the case of Wales, where we are so desperately short of dentists. Therefore, I hope that in this matter the question of time schedules and average performance will not be pressed too far.
I hope, too, that my detailed criticism will not hide my conviction that our health services in Wales are improving and performing a most valuable function. As my hon. Friend said, they are staffed by many devoted and able people. I am glad to hear the news about the Welsh teaching hospital. I am glad to have the assurance that it will be possible for it to be built in one phase—sooner perhaps than we contemplated.
Serious notice should be taken of the criticisms about the proposed plans made by the hon. Member for Pontypool. I do not know to what extent architects ever agree about the virtue of a new plan. Having a father and a brother who are architects, I read the architectural journals and have noted from time to time that most new plans are criticised by other architects. Nevertheless, it is true, as the hon. Member said, that the plan has come in for very great criticism, and I hope that serious attention will be paid to what he has said.
I hope, also, that nothing that has been said today will destroy our conviction or damage the feeling in the House that the National Health Service in Wales can be made, with perhaps a short-term improvement rather than a long-term improvement, an admirable instrument for improving the health of our people.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. Ifor Davies: During his speech the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) referred to voluntary workers in relation to health matters. I am second to none in my admiration for voluntary workers in all respects, and I think I can say on behalf of my hon. Friends that we are also second to none in our admiration for the National Health Service.
I join with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. A. Pearson), in his excellent opening speech, when he referred to this as the first "Welsh day" in the House this year to the fact that the National Health Service will stand as a great memorial to the memory of my late right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale, Aneurin Bevan.
The hon. Member for Barry mentioned the changed pattern of diseases and referred to tuberculosis. Despite the important matters which we have been discussing, I feel that the most dramatic

and most arresting statement in the Report is contained in nine words on page 52:
The incidence of tuberculosis is still on the decline.
It is noteworthy that "decline", in English, means "reduction". But the Welsh reference to "decline" meant "wastage". I remember when, twenty years ago, the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) produced a remarkable report which came into being as a result of the abhorrence in Wales of this wasteful disease.
These words in the Report are like sweet music in the ears of ex-T.B. patients like myself and I take the opportunity today to pay a tribute to the great work done by the pioneers of the Welsh National Memorial Association, who, over a period of fifty years, have led the work of fighting this disease. I pay tribute, too, to the chest physician at Swansea, Dr. T. W. Davies, and my general practitioner, Dr. Morgan Owen, to whom I am personally indebted. Indeed, the close co-operation between general practitioners and the chest physicians has been of very great significance in the fight against tuberculosis.
Despite the fact that we welcome the comments in the Report about the decline in the incidence of tuberculosis, I would remind the hon. Member for Barry and the House of what appears on page 117 of the Welsh Regional Hospital Report. There, we find the statement that the danger still persists. Its words are:
Tuberculosis still presents a problem necessitating a continued attack for the foreseeable future. Although there is a decline in mortality, there is as yet no convincing evidence that the incidence of the disease will diminish at the same rate.
This means that there must be no relaxation in the attack on this disease. There must be far greater efforts to combat it.
But what is happening? What has happened, in Swansea, within the last few days? I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us why the static miniature radiography unit in Swansea, the first to be established in Wales nine years ago—although two or three others have been established since—was closed on Saturday last. Who is responsible


for this tragic blunder on the part of somebody in authority?
I know who was against closing it. In a statement which he made last week, the medical office of health referred to it as a most serious retrograde step. The management board of the Glantower Hospital also opposed it. The local author ties opposed it. Last, but not least, the latest Report of the Regional Hospital Board anticipated that something would happen. On page 121, the Report states:
This static unit is of great service to general practitioners and it will be a disservice to the public to close it and replace it at the Singleton Park Hospital.
That is the new hospital.
The Report continues:
The unit at this hospital centre will deal almost entirely with the hospital population and the people of Swansea and district".
and the valleys which I represent
and the general practitioners will be deprived of the present service. It is highly probable that a number of persons will be reluctant to go two or three miles for an X-ray and"—
this is the important matter—
general practitioners will not be so inclined as at present to refer individuals with slight symptoms to a unit so far from the patient's home.
In the face of all these protests, why was the unit closed? What are the reasons for the closure? Cases can now be dealt with, so we are told, at the new hospital. I have visited this hospital and I pay tribute to its excellence. The action which has been taken, however, ignores the needs of the general practitioner and also the voluntary aspect. For example, in the unit in Swansea, 20,000 films were taken last year. If we take into account the people who will now be transferred to the new hospital, it is obvious that somebody is ignoring the fact that the general practitioners have referred between 5,000 and 6,000 people to this unit. Indeed, as many as between 4,000 and 5,000 people have visited it voluntarily.
For years, we have been attempting by propaganda and education to get people voluntarily to have X-rays, especially people with early symptoms of the disease. Because of fear and suspicion, however, they have refused to be X-rayed. In Swansea last year, between 4.000 and 5,000 people visited the unit. People will not do this when they have

to go out of their way and travel three or four miles outside the town. Somebody has ignored these considerations. The general practitioners have persuaded 5,000 or 6,000 patients to call in because they knew that they had early symptoms of the disease and it was easy to suggest to these people that they might visit the unit whilst doing their shopping in the town. In future, we shall lose those people.
What has caused the decline in the incidence of tuberculosis? One reason has been the introduction of mass radiography in 1944. It is noteworthy, however, that on page 143 of the Report of the Regional Hospital Board, we read:
The proportion of new cases discovered by mass radiography is considerably increased in those places where static miniature radiography facilities exist.
There is a remarkable table on page 154 of the Report to which I draw attention. Dealing with the position in Swansea, it shows that of a total of 643 cases referred by the mass radiography service for further observation, 57 confirmed pulmonary tuberculosis cases were traced. Fifty-seven out of a total of 126 new cases diagnosed at the clinic—in other words, 45·24 per cent. of the mass radiography cases confirmed as having pulmonary tuberculosis helped by the existence of this miniature unit and its co-operation with the local chest clinic.
The significant link between general practitioners and the static miniature radiography unit is shown clearly in Table V, on page 149 of the Report. It gives some remarkable figures. We see that 7,693 cases, or the equivalent of one-quarter of the total number of cases dealt with at the static unit, were referred by general practitioners. Of this number, 56 were cases of confirmed pulmonary tuberculosis, representing one-half of the total cases referred from all sources. This is a clear indication of the significant link of general practitioners with the service. The yield of cases referred by general practitioners to static units is the remarkably high figure of 7·28 per 1,000, the highest of any source whatever. This national figure corresponds to the yield in Swansea.
Another reason for the need of static miniature units in convenient centres of population is the remarkable increase in the incidence of non-tuberculous chest


conditions in Wales, which show no sign of declining. On page 116 of its Report, the Welsh Regional Hospital Board uses the word "staggering" and gives the amazing figure that 89 per cent. of the non-pulmonary cases examined in the chest clinics were non-tuberculous. They included heart disease, bronchitis, emphysema, pneumoconiosis, malignant growths and infection of the upper respiratory tract. In all, over 40 different non-tuberculous chest diseases and more than 60 non-respiratory diseases have been diagnosed.
A serious and significant fact has been the steady increase in the number of cases of lung cancer. This means that it is imperative and urgent that the existing chest services Should be adequately developed to meet this menace that is draining the economy and the health of the nation. These facts, I suggest, should also destroy any illusions that the work of chest clinics is decreasing merely because of the decline in the incidence of tuberculosis. There is a school of thought which argues that now, because of the decrease of the incidence of tuberculosis, the work of chest clinics is coming to an end. On the contrary, the work of chest clinics is increasing because of the increase in these other chest diseases. This is added reason why the chest clinic in Swansea should not be unnecessarily burdened with cases of slight symptoms which could quite adequately be dealt with at the static unit in the centre of the town.
I appeal to the Minister for Welsh Affairs, who, I am glad to see, is in his place, to investigate and to reopen this unit as soon as possible, for it is an area where industrialism is increasing and will require more and not fewer facilities for dealing with the control of chest diseases. It is also essential that political expediency and economic excuses, which, I believe, ware put forward for the closing of this unit, must never be allowed to interfere with the provision of facilities for early diagnosis; otherwise, the final victory over these chest diseases will be delayed indefinitely. Indeed, early diagnosis is the secret of success, and prevention is always better than cure. Hence the importance of static miniature radiography units.
In conclusion, I turn for a few moments to re-emphasise the appeal which has already been made in the House for an additional plastic surgery unit to be placed in a more favourable geographical position in Wales. I welcome very much the reply given yesterday by the Parliamentary Secretary to a Question, a reply in which she stated that she was prepared to look again at this point. I shall not repeat the arguments which were put forward in the House on 26th April when this was last discussed, but I would re-emphasise—this is not a criticism of the excellent work done at the Chepstow Hospital—that it does not make sense that in the industrial area of West Wales people who are, for example, in Swansea, should have to travel 73 miles to Chepstow or, who are farther afield, in Cardiganshire or Pembrokeshire, Should have to go 100 miles. I myself have seen people in local industry having to be visited in Chepstow, and the mothers of children who are seriously ill having to stay with them because of the distance involved.
There is every case for an additional plastic surgery unit in West Wales. I put forward the suggestion that we have already in Swansea, at the Morriston Hospital, an excellent opportunity of establishing this unit. I plead with the Minister to give great attention to the request which is being made from many quarters in West Wales for this very desirable additional surgery unit.
I hope that these two important matters will receive the attention of the Government and that action, which always speaks louder than words, will be forthcoming.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Donald Box: In the recent debate in the House on the pollution of beaches great stress was laid on the fact that dirty beaches are not only unpleasant but are also an ever present danger to health as well. Though, at the end of that debate, one was left with the impression that already bad conditions were the exception rather than the rule, there is no doubt whatsoever that the intensive Press publicity has had the effect not only of stirring the national conscience but even of waking up one or two local authorities to the realities of the situation.
It was with this recent debate in mind that I was interested to read the paragraphs on infectious diseases and food poisoning in the Report before us today. As a result, I could not help wondering whether, in our deliberations, we should, perhaps, have sponsored a clean food campaign in priority to cleaner beaches. As the Annual Report of the Ministry of Health for 1959 is not published till later this year, the Report we are debating today contains details of only two outbreaks of food poisoning in Wales in 1959.
There were others of less significance, no doubt, but the impression is that the general decline in the number of food poisoning cases in Wales in recent years—they were down by as much as 16 per cent. in 1958—is a clear indication that the decision to remove the primary administrative responsibility for food hygiene in Wales from the Ministry of Food to the Welsh Board of Health in 1955 was a very sound one indeed.
In both cases reported here it was not possible to say what had caused the trouble. In each instance, the Report states:
it was possible to pinpoint shortcomings in hygiene which could well have contributed to the spread of disease, and the correction of which would make for safety in future.
It is—I hope that hon. Members on both sides will agree with me—this safety in the future factor which interests me most, for, despite our excellent record in Wales, there must be many minor cases where the symptoms are insufficient to be recorded as food poisoning, or where the resultant infectious disease is so long in developing it is difficult to identify its origin. This safety in future is of especial importance at present to our tourist industry in Wales, which is gradually expanding year by year.
What tremendous further impetus it would get if we could claim pride in spotless conditions in all the hotels and restaurants and licensed establishments throughout the Principality. But can we claim this? I do not think that we can. We are all, I fear, too familiar with the half-washed glass, the chipped cup and the unsterilised spoon and fork. How many caterers would really welcome a surprise inspection of their kitchens while meals are being prepared? Some would, of course, because they take pride in the cleanliness of their establishments,

but there are others where the motto is, "What the eye does not see…". In this respect, I look forward to the adoption by more and more catering establishments in Wales of the American system where, I understand, an increasing number of restaurants are being fitted with glass-walled kitchens in the centre of the diningrooms. In this way the preparation of food is constantly under the observation of the customer and a high standard of food hygiene is the inevitable result.
The Welsh Board of Health is doing a great deal to promote food cleanliness by enforcing the regulations relating to hygiene, unfit food, the control of food-borne disease, slaughterhouse inspection, and the hygiene of milk distribution. The duty of enforcing these hygiene and sanitary provisions, however, is placed upon the local authorities, and the food regulations enable the courts to impose heavy penalties for bad handling of food. In addition, the Welsh Board of Health carries on a constant campaign of food hygiene educational publicity through the medium of Press and television advertising, leaflets, posters, booklets and films; but however assiduously this campaign is pursued, and, indeed, however effective it may be, the real solution to this problem can be obtained only by the full impact of public opinion, for food must not only be clean but safe.
Food which looks clean and does not taste or smell bad may, nevertheless, be dangerous. There are germs everywhere, in the air we breathe, on everything we touch, and, in particular, in and about our bodies. Most of them are harmless; some of them are even beneficial; but there are others which cause food to deteriorate, and a few which are downright dangerous. Cuts and sores particularly may be a source of infection and a person may be a carrier of these germs although unaffected by them himself. If they are transmitted to food they can cause an outbreak of food poisoning such as those to which the Report refers.
Flies and insects may sometimes be to blame, but invariably a human being is ultimately responsible. Whatever steps are taken by the Board and its representatives, a great deal depends on the personal hygiene of the person who is handling the food. It is no good installing hot water supplies if they pare never


used. Food handlers should scrub their hands with the care and particularity of doctors, and it is up to public opinion to see that they do.
The Board is doing its share and we must do the rest. Although these conditions apply to most parts of Great Britain, I should like to see Wales give a lead to the rest of the country in being clean food conscious. The Report shows how the public health laboratories at Cardiff, Newport, Swansea, Carmarthen, Aberystwyth, and Conway are playing their part in fighting food poisoning and disease. The rest is up to us, for only public opinion can and will ensure that the hygiene of our hospitality in Wales lives up to the charms of our beautiful countryside.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Tudor Watkins: I was enjoying the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box) so much that I was making a brief note to welcome his contribution and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. I. Davies) and I was not ready to get up when you, with your kind face, looked my way, Mr. Speaker.
I very much agreed with the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) when in the course of his speech he referred to his notes, but when he discarded them I could not agree with what he said. The hon. Member referred to omissions in the Report on Developments and Government Action of references to the medical and health services in Wales. Except for two brief paragraphs dealing with two services there is no reference to the Executive Councils in Wales. They are important bodies which deal with general practitioners, opticians, dentists and chemists. There was a very good report on their work in 1958, and I ask the Minister for Welsh Affairs to see that paragraphs are published in next year's Report dealing with the excellent work of these bodies.
The hon. Member for Barry said that the report on the Health Service had been cut by half. It is important that we should have as much information as possible. There is an Association of Executive Councils. If a doctor came to Wales from England or Scotland and read this Report he would ask, "Who is administrating these services in Wales? Have

you no Executive Councils?" I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health will look into this matter and pursue it through the usual channels. I have to declare an interest, because I was a chairman of an Executive Council. These councils do valiant work and they have so many sub-committees that the number would frighten even a county council.
I am glad to find that the Welsh Joint Prescription Pricing Service has been selected from among all the services in the country as the one in which a pilot scheme is to be studied in future as to pricing of drugs following upon the recommendations of the Hinchcliffe Committee. This is a great tribute to the work that has been done by this service in Wales. More publicity should have been given to the work that has been done by doctors in Breconshire. I know that one must not advertise doctors and I shall not do so, but there are doctors in Breconshire who have issued an excellent report on economical prescribing. The Welsh Board of Health has sent the report to all regional medical officers in England and Wales. I hope that even Conservative organisations in Wales will make that known throughout the land. It is far more vital work than some of the things that Conservatives are doing these days.
A number of interesting subjects could have been dealt with in the Report. We might have had information about the average cost in Wales of specific services—the general practitioners, dentists, chemists and so on, so that we could make comparisons with the cost of these services in England and Scotland. I should like to pay tribute to the services of Sir Frederick Alban as chairman of the Welsh Hospital Board. The Labour Government did well in forgetting politics and appointing him as chairman. He did magnificent work when he was in charge of the Welsh National Memorial Association.
There is a tendency these days to pay tribute to people when they have given up work or have died but there is a man in charge as vice-chairman of the Regional Hospital Board in Cardiff to whom I should like to pay tribute—Alderman Tom Evans. The announcement was made yesterday that he had been appointed president of one of the sessions of the Royal National Eistedfodd


in Cardiff, and that is a greater tribute than being appointed to the chairmanship of the B.B.C. in Wales. I should like to pay tribute to those who have worked in the National Health Service in Wales and particularly to Alderman Tom Evans as chairman of the Finance Committee.
As to the newly-appointed chairman of the Welsh Hospital Board, I would say that there is a tendency nowadays to appoint people who have been of great service to the Conservative and Unionist Association and apparently he was selected because he was chairman of that body in Wales. He was not a member of a regional hospital board and he had no previous knowledge of management committees. Nevertheless, I wish him success. I hope that officials will not spend too much time preparing briefs for conferences instead of getting on with other work because of the chairman's lack of knowledge. I do not often make criticisms of this kind but I make them on this occasion because I know what I am talking about.
The hon. Member for Gower referred to the progress made in the treatment of tuberculosis but I hope that in future it will not be left to the man in the street to be told suddenly that a hospital for the treatment of tuberculosis is to be closed. I refer particularly to the Pontywal Sanatorium and the Adelina Patti Hospital known as "Craig-y-Nos". Let there be forward planning by the regional hospital boards. They should not be spurred by the Ministry of Health to close hospitals on economy grounds. Now the regional hospital board in these cases has seen the advisability of continuing to use the Pontywal and Adelina Patti hospitals, the one for chronic sick and the other for the treatment of chest diseases and tuberculosis. I am sure that people generally are pleased with that decision.
When a small unit is closed in a rural district it is not generally realised that those who become redundant as a result are a greater proportion of the community than would be the case in a large industrial centre. It is important to keep these places going and this means forward planning. There are blank spaces in the report of the Welsh Hospital Board where it ought to be dealing with what is to happen in the future.

Let the Board fill these blank spaces by the time we receive the next report.
I should now like to say a few words about bronchitis. The report of the senior administrative medical officer, Dr. T. Stenner Evans, says that 10 per cent. of all sickness claims under the National Insurance scheme in England and Wales are in respect of bronchitis from Wales. Therefore, the disease is very prevalent in Wales. This compares with 5 per cent. in respect of asthma and 36 per cent. in respect of silicosis. Greater consideration should be given to this aspect.
There is another aspect of T.B. with which I am concerned. There is a tendency towards empire building on the part of some consultants. They treat T.B. patients as out patients instead of sending them to a recognised place for treatment where there is better provision. A well-known doctor in Mid-Wales tells me that it is much more difficult to deal with a patient who has been treated with antibiotics at home than it is to deal with a patient who had gone direct to a T.B. sanatorium.
A new kind of disease appears to have come into existence. It is called farmers' lung. It is brought about by mouldy hay dust. I think that there has been one fatality from it in Montgomeryshire during the last two months. I hope that consideration will be given to this disease so that when farmers get it they can obtain ready admission to hospital for treatment. When I was concerned with National Insurance whenever a miner was reported to be suffering from bronchitis I always referred him to the regional medical officer to ascertain whether he was suffering from anything else. I understand that it is not easy to cure this disease called farmers' lung.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) said a great deal about infant mortality. I do not think he exaggerated the case. If he used strong language it should not have upset the hon. Member for Barry so much. He stated the facts. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to look at the situation in some of the counties. In Brecon the average is 41, the same as the average for Wales. It is greater than that of England. What is the reason


for this? In one of the reports of the Regional Hospital Board it is stated:
There are important factors involved. They are not medical, but they are either educational or socially economic.
The educational aspect can be dealt with by various means, but "socially economic" is a very strange phrase. Does it mean bad housing or that local authorities in rural parts of Wales cannot build houses because they have no subsidies? What is the reason for it? I hope that it is not the reason about which I am rather frightened. Is it because there is a greater fall out of Strontium 90 in the mountainous parts of Wales? How many deaths are due to leukaemia? I understand that there have been far more deaths than there should have been in the last two years because of the fallout of Strontium 90. What research is being done into this matter?
There are 102 sampling places for medical research, 42 of them in South Wales, but only four in the mountainous districts. If the fallout of Strontium 90 is heavier where there is greater rainfall, the sampling centres ought to be equally divided between the industrial and rural areas. Information on this subject should be available in the Report to allay public fears.
I was glad to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary had to say about the mental health service. This is very important. I hope that there will be greater discussions with local authorities to bring about co-ordination. A great deal is being done by the Welsh Board of Health, but I am not certain that sufficient is being done with regard to the provision of training centres for children. Too many mentally handicapped children are going out of Wales for treatment. There ought to be training centres for them in Wales.
What is being done for young persons? A formidable list of centres was given by the Parliamentary Secretary but they were not divided into subheads so that I could distinguish them. Local authorities ought to pay greater attention to rehabilitation. Excellent work is being done with regard to rehabilitation. I have seen the workshop in the mental hospital in my constituency, but once the patients leave the hospital what is done about their after care? Surely there are many boys who could be use-

fully employed by doing clerical work in county council departments. The answer of the authorities is, "Look at the superannuation Act. We cannot employ them". I would not mind seeing the regulations broken if boys can be rehabilitated. There is a reluctance on the part of local authorities and other people to employ people who have attended a mental hospital for voluntary treatment.
I was glad to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary had to say about the building programme. There is a shortage of doctors in T.B. hospitals, despite the fact that they are running down. From where is the future staff to come? There is a deficiency in hospital staffs all round. I asked the Minister of Health the other day whether something could be done to increase the salaries of matrons in some of the rural hospitals. Two hospitals in my constituency, one at Builth Wells and the other at Llandrindod Wells, recently advertised for a matron. Each hospital received only one application.
I suggest that the salaries of those who venture to come back to rural Wales should be increased or that not so much should be charged for board and lodging. An allowance is made to teachers who do exceptional work. Such an allowance should be made to a matron of a small hospital, because proportionately she has greater manual work to do than the matron who is supervising a large hospital.
I cannot leave this aspect of the matter without paying tribute to the men and women and young girls who venture into the hospital service and do domestic work. Much credit is due to them. I find from the Report that 30 per cent. of their time is spent in sweeping and polishing floors, 25 per cent. in washing up, 15 per cent. in washing and scrubbing and 10 per cent. in dusting and polishing furniture. This is not a very good advertisement. The work should be more amenable. I am glad to see that mechanisation is being introduced to ease this drudgery. I pay tribute to those who are doing this work.
I shall not dwell a great deal on the question of queue jumping for beds. If I were to elaborate on it a great many people would write to me and tell me of their own cases. Far too much of it is


done. I do not wish to be pointed in my criticism, but the Ministry should look at the question of part-time consultants jumping the queue in order to get more private consultations in the future.
Another thing which annoys me is the fees charged by doctors when asked to give their opinion in a court or for a certificate. A trade union or a lawyer acting on behalf of an injured person or someone with a disability, asks for a report from a hospital and sometimes requests the doctor to attend the court. They are then charged enormous fees for attendance—the charge being made in the knowledge that the union has, perhaps, plenty of money, or that the lawyer can get it in some other way. There should be a uniform charge for fees for doctors from hospitals, and also for consultants, for certificates and attendance at court.
I declare my own interest in this matter. Unfortunately, I have a complaint which needs constant consultant attention from time to time. If it had not been for the great work both by the general practitioners and the consultants I would not be able to speak here today. I want to pay tribute to them and to thank them and the National Health Service for the excellent work they are doing. I am sure that I am voicing that sentiment on behalf of a great number of people. As an ex-member of the Executive Council of Breconshire and of the Hospital Management Committee for Brecon and Radnor, I wondered where I would find the time for this work. I found it, however, because the work was of interest to me, and I want to pay tribute to those on the Hospital Management Committee, on the Regional Hospital Board and on the Executive Council, for the terrific amount of voluntary service still being given under the National Health Service.
I remember that when the National Health Service was proposed in 1946 there were criticisms from hospital governors, and I remember at one meeting answering twenty-three questions. For once I did not lose my temper. One reverend gentleman said that when the National Health Service came in, voluntary service would go out. I asked the late Aneurin Bevan what I should reply. He said, "No, that will not happen." He was quite right. Voluntary service is as noble

today as it has ever been, and I hope that it will continue.
I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the able report which she gave. I hope that she will bear in mind the severe criticisms that have been levelled at the National Health Service today, and that an opportunity will be given in future reports for more information to be supplied in order to allay some of the fears that have been expressed.

6.44 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Rees: The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) was right in the praise which he gave to the late chairman and deputy-chairman of the Regional Hospital Board, but he was a little unfair in his criticism of the present chairman. He omitted to mention the very valuable public services which Sir Godfrey Llewellyn gave at the time of the Empire Games, which brought such benefit to Wales. That was a considerable administrative achievement and if Sir Godfrey brings that skill to the regional hospital hoard, it will be very beneficial.
The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. I. Davies) referred to the closure of the radiography unit in my constituency. Technically and geographically it is about 100 yards outside my constituency, but it is nevertheless in Swansea. He referred to the reason for that closure as being economic, but I understand that it was to ensure greater efficiency.
The building which housed the unit was in an area which in the future will be demolished and redeveloped. In any event, therefore, the unit would have had to be moved at that stage. It has now been moved to the hospital out-patients' department, a brand new building which has been open only a few weeks and which is later to be extended to hold a further 500 new beds.
I understand that the medical profession—and I am close to it because members of my family are doctors—considers that there will be greater efficiency and that doctors will be able Ito see a greater number of patients. If that is true, then I am happy. I do not wish to disagree with the hon. Member, for I believe that his sentiments were right in wishing this unit to continue its good work. The disease of tuberculosis is a scourge which must be wiped out completely.

Mr. I. Davies: The hon. Member said that he was in close touch with the medical profession. I quoted examples of members of the medical profession who are against the removal of this unit. The whole issue is not that the building containing the unit did not need to be pulled down but that the unit should still be kept in the town. Members of the Regional Hospital Board and the local medical officer of health—indeed all the authorities—are against the move. The unit, really to be effective, should be in the area where there is the most population, that is, in a convenient and suitable spot for people to call in. That is why criticism has been made of the decision removing it to what I admit is the beautiful new hospital. It is now too far away for voluntary patients merely to walk in or for general practitioners to encourage their patients to make a visit.

Mr. Rees: I do not wish to be unkind to the medical officer of health, but he is losing control of this unit and it is being taken over by the hospital. I am not sure that that is quite a good thing. I am not too happy that his criticism of the closure is as important as perhaps it may seem on the face of it. The important thing is that, as long as the service continues and develops, other diseases than tuberculosis can be detected by this means, and there will be specialists on hand to give advice at the same time as the radiography unit detects the disease. I will go this far to meet the hon. Member—that I understand that part of the medical opinion of Swansea and South Wales is strongly in favour of the move.
Some people have criticised the Report for its brevity and because it does not cover certain subjects. That may be so, but I welcome it because it is a Report of action and progress in a year in which a lot has been done in Wales. Perhaps we are, sometimes, a greedy nation and are never too happy and seem always to be wanting more and more improvements. Let us admit, however, that the Report tells a story of some progress and development in our hospital and medical services.
Wales has had its full share per head of the population—indeed, greater than its full share—of hospital development. In my own constituency there is a new

hospital which was originally planned in several stages. The out-patients' department, as I have stated, has already been opened. The Report says that the hospital is to have 250 beds, but this figure has now been increased and it is to have 500 beds. That is not a Report to be ashamed of.
My only concern is that so long as the hospital as it stands is in three sections—the Morriston Hospital on one side of town, another section in the centre of the town and the outpatients' department two miles down the road—administrative difficulties will be great. If the development of the later stage can be hurried so that the old hospital in the centre of the town can be transferred in toto to the new building, this will be greatly appreciated in Swansea and South Wales.
The difficulties in Swansea are those found in all the older types of hospital throughout the Principality. Tribute has already been paid to the work of the staffs of the hospitals and I am sure that no hon. Member would suggest that the Welsh hospital service was not living up to its standard and the promise which it has always put forward.
The reallocation of hospital services is an important subject and has been mentioned by several hon. Members. Tuberculosis hospitals and sanitoria are not fully occupied and plans need to be made for the future use of those hospitals when they are used even less than now. I wonder whether there is not a case for creating another plastic surgery unit similar to that at Chepstow and nearer to industrial South Wales and Glamorganshire.
I know that statistics can be provided to show that numerically we are better served in Wales than in many other parts of Great Britain, but, as the hon. Member for Gower pointed out, a 73-mile journey for someone who has suffered an industrial accident is too far. That sort of situation arises on only a limited number of occasions, but when it does, speed in getting the patient into hospital is most important. There is a small unit at Llandough Hospital which is nearer to the heart of the industrial areas and I hope that, in the not too distant future, the suggestion which was made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) yesterday and which


the Parliamentary Secretary promised to consider will be implemented and plastic surgery units will be extended in the South Wales area.
There has been much talk of the extent of rehabilitation. As the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) said, there is now only one unit in Wales, in Cardiff, catering for one hundred people on a non-residential basis. He did not go into the subject deeply enough, but perhaps that was because he was limiting his time and devoting his speech to other matters. The rehabilitation service in respect of industrial injuries is administered by the Ministry of Labour while for medical cases—broken bones and so on—it is administered by the physiotherapy departments of hospitals which come under the Ministry of Health. Is there not a case for amalgamating all forms of rehabilitation units under the supervision and administration of the Ministry of Health? We are dealing with people who have a disease, or a disability, or who have suffered an accident, and the Ministry of Health is best able to cater for them.
The hon. Member for Pontypool spoke of establishing more residential centres. I am not sure that that is the answer. The difficulty with a residential unit is that if the unit at Cardiff, say, became a residential unit, men going to it from Swansea, Carmarthenshire, Cardiganshire or parts of North Wales would have to leave their families and live in Cardiff until they were rehabilitated either to go back to their old jobs, or to take new jobs. A series of small units near general hospitals in local industrial areas, which men could attend as out-patients from day to day, would be preferable. Such an arrangement is feasible and I myself attended the Cardiff Royal Infirmary for two years after having an accident—I cannot say that it was an industrial accident, but perhaps it was commercial. Many people would be able to carry on some form of occupation to supplement their National Insurance benefit and in that way some hardship would be alleviated.
I want the units to be established around the local hospitals and for the services to be amalgamated under the Ministry of Health because men who go to the units for rehabilitation after breaking a bone, or undergoing an amputation, or something of that nature

—not necessarily the result of an industrial accident—may have to be trained in a new craft and may have to be sent to some other form of unit. In addition, when the units are separate, the medical staff has to be duplicated and there is a strong case for having all the medical staff on a full-time basis so that both mentally and physically the man concerned is kept in his own environment and in conditions which will help his return to normal life.
If the units cannot be brought close together, several hospitals will be needed in Glamorganshire and Carmarthenshire for this work. I am not so conversant with North Wales and I am sure that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) would not want me to go down the leafy lanes of Breconshire with him. However, there are hospitals throughout the Principality which would be suitable for this purpose and which are near to industrial areas where, with the introduction of high speed machinery, more accidents are likely to result, whether we like it or not. The more that people are employed on industrial jobs, the greater will be the number of accidents. We must do some thing to improve these services, amalgamate them and bring them nearer together so that they are not broken up and so that when a man goes to such a unit there is not so great a disturbance in his home life and his social, industrial, or commercial life.
The hospital service in Wales has done a great job. The figures show that there are more general practitioners per head of the population in Wales than there are in England, or in England and Wales together. The Report shows that 46 per cent. of the population of England and Wales are on the lists of doctors with fewer than 2,500 patients on their lists, while in Wales alone the figure is 61 per cent. As one goes up the scale, to doctors with lists of 2,500 or more—3,000 and 3,000 or more—we are still better off than other parts of the country.

Mr. Abse: Has the hon. Gentleman examined the figures of the numbers of consultants in Wales and in England? If he does, he will find that in Wales we are scores down on a population basis. I know that he is anxious that we should have parity, but I urge him to direct his attention to that fact,


because without consultant services we can never achieve parity of personnel with England.

Mr. Rees: I follow the hon. Gentleman's argument, but he did not allow me to finish developing mine. Apart from road accidents, all medical treatment begins with the general practitioner, and if we have a situation in which more people have a chance of getting more personal service from their general practitioner, then we can probably do much to limit the effect of disease. As the hon. Member for Gower said, prevention is better than cure and much work in preventive medicine has been done in Wales. I do not dispute the figures about consultants, but it is more important that we should have sufficient general practitioners and then, later, have the specialists who know more and more about less and less. I think that we will find that in that way our medical service will improve.
The Report is heartening, encouraging, and one of which we ought not to be ashamed. No one has suggested that there is any complacency on this side of the House—apart from hon. Members opposite, and that is understandable. We want to go to greater things and to develop the service even more, but, at the same time, let us be fair and frank and admit that last year was a year of achievement.

7.0 p.m.

The Rev. Llywelyn Williams: We have listened to a very thoughtful and well-reasoned speech by the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Rees). Indeed, I think it is fair to say that the debate has not suffered from a lack of thoughtful and well-reasoned speeches. In that sense this has been a beneficial day for those of us who represent Wales, and I am sure we all join in the hope that the people in the Principality, whose services we have been so easily able to praise and eulogise, will become aware of what has been said and will be inspired to greater efforts and even better results in the future.
I thought that the debate was opened perfectly by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. A. Pearson). His speech was so much like his own

gracious personality. It was calm, deliberate and sincere. He gave a fine lead in what I am certain has been a useful debate. I associate myself with what he said about two of our great benefactors in Wales, two people whom we are proud to claim as Welshmen: first, our late lamented colleague Mr. Aneurin Bevan who was, as I think everyone will admit, the great architect of our National Health Service, and, secondly, Sir Frederick Alban, whom I regard as one of the finest public administrators in the Principality.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. I. Davies) was speaking, my mind went back to the terrific impact made on me as a young man by the Report of the Commission under the chairmanship of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) which revealed an agonising analysis of the frightening tuberculosis figures for Wales. I remember the shock of seeing five Welsh counties at the head of the table which showed the ravages of this insidious disease. My mind went back to the days I spent in the birthplace of my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts). I was a minister of religion in Bethesda. Caernarvonshire, and, on reflection, I seem to think that almost every family in the church had at one time or another lost one member of the family through tuberculosis. I officiated at funerals in the latter years of the thirties and the majority of the people whom I buried died from this dread disease.
One became almost fatalistic about the disease. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower said that the word used in the vernacular in South Wales was "decline". The word used in North Wales was "decay". It seemed so terribly inevitable that at regular intervals people would die because of this shocking disease. It is now excitingly wonderful to see how the mortality statistics have gone down year by year.
There are many reasons for that. One is the tremendous strides made in what I call chemo-therapy; the tremendous effects brought about by our antibiotic drugs, the sulphonamides, and so on. The other reason is the early diagnosis of the disease, through mass radiography, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower.


But, whatever the reason, I am certain we all rejoice that the disease which at one time was the scourge of our country is now slowly but surely disappearing from our midst.
We in Wales claim, and I hope rightly, that we have rendered great service not only to our own country but to the United Kingdom in the sphere of medicine and health. I shall never forget how, in the midst of sadness, I noted with pride that of the six signatures on the daily bulletins issued as the late King George VI was dying, three were those of distinguished Welshmen. I am referring to Sir Daniel Davies, Sir Clement Price-Thomas, a native of the township in which I live, and Lord Evans as he now is, Sir Horace Evans as he was then. When it is remembered that the population of Wales is only one-twentieth of that of England, it is a remarkable tribute to a small country that those three distinguished people, who came from humble homes, achieved such eminence as to be ranked amongst the greatest and the best specialists available during the crisis.
I remember reading with great pleasure a Ministry of Health Report issued only three years ago. In the introduction to the Report reference was made to the three pioneers in thoracic surgery. First, Dr. Morriston Davies, the first person in Great Britain to reveal the possibilities of surgery in the lungs; secondly, Dr. Tudor Edwards; and, thirdly, Sir Clement Price-Thomas. Whoever drew up the Report saw fit to refer to those three great pioneers in thoracic surgery. It can, therefore, be understood why we in Wales are possibly more than usually concerned about health and health matters.
In referring to the problem of tuberculosis, diminished though it is, thank God, my hon. Friend the Member for Gower said that there was no room for complacency. He referred to the Report of the Welsh Regional Hospital Board where the chief consultant in tuberculosis to the Board said that even though the mortality rate in tuberculosis was decreasing, nevertheless the incidence of tuberculosis amongst the Welsh people was not decreasing correspondingly, and that there were some people who were still reluctant to receive the treatment which has proved so wonderfully beneficial to thousands of our people. The

professor who wrote this admirable chapter in the Report—Professor Frederick Heaf—says that he is still far from satisfied with chest conditions in Wales generally. In conclusion, he
says:
It is for this reason, during this period of transition that I suggest that the whole position should be considered by a specially appointed committee of chest and general physicians who should be able to guide the Board to provide the services that are required.
In the non-tubercular disease, such as carcinoma of the lungs, the figures for Wales are alarmingly higher than those for England. Although the population of Wales is only 5 or 6 per cent. of that of England, statistics from the Ministry of National Insurance show that more than 10 per cent. of those who claim sickness benefit on the ground of bronchitis come from Wales. I am very perturbed at the mortality figure for carcinoma of the lungs, or lung cancer. The figure for Swansea is 32 per cent. higher than the national average; for Cardiff it is 26 per cent. higher, and for Newport it is 17 per cent. higher. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) has informed us on many occasions, the figure for silicosis—another dread disease in Wales—is out of all proportion to the population percentage. No fewer than 36 per cent. of those who die from silicosis in England and Wales come from Wales.
In Wales the proportion of notifications of tuberculosis per 100,000 of the population is 70·2, whereas in England it is 57·6. Deaths from tuberculosis per 100,000 of population in Wales number 11·6, while in England they number 8·7. I regret to say that the figures for Scotland are even worse. A proper examination of this position should be conducted in view of the disparity in these sets of figures.
I now turn to the question of the dental condition of the people of Wales, which is very much worse than it is in England, although I agree that there are two regions in England which have a poorer pro rata representation of dentists to population than Wales has. For some inexplicable reason the Midland Region and the North Midland Region have the worst proportions. with one dentist for every 5,900 people. But in Wales, according to the most recent Ministry of Health Report, which came out last


week, the proportion is as low as one dentist for every 5,500 people. So we are still very near the bottom of the list, and we are very concerned at the situation.
I should have to use some pretty strong words to describe the school dentist situation. If my two grammar school children had depended upon the frequency of the visits of the school dentist they would not have anything like such lovely teeth as their father has. We feel compelled to send them to a dentist who is not employed by the school dental health service. He is a very fine dentist in every sense, and we are proud to send our children to him. This is a parlous situation and it apparently arises because we have no dental school in Wales, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) said, in his grippingly dramatic speech.
We look forward to the future with eagerness, knowing that when the new university hospital medical teaching school is set up it will have affiliated to it a dental school and hospital. Lot us hope that when that great day comes and we have this new teaching hospital we shall see, in time, a corresponding improvement in the health of the teeth of our children and of all the people in Wales. Very little conservation work is done on the teeth of our people. We are at the very bottom of the list in this respect. I quote from Table F of the latest Report of the Ministry of Health, which gives the figures for 1959. We are at the bottom of the list in relation to the number of permanent teeth filled to every one extracted, but at the top of the list in regard to the percentage of cases which include the provision of both upper and lower dentures. I do not want to see a nation of people with false teeth. I want to see people with their own teeth when they are well into their old age. Wales has a higher percentage of people with artificial teeth than any other region in England.
There is no room for complacency here. The hon. Member for Swansea, West referred to the fact that we are better off than England in respect of general practitioners who have lists of over 3,000 patients. I suggest that it is a shockingly bad thing wherever it occurs. We are not so bad in this respect. In Wales the figure is 16 per

cent., while in England it is 28 per cent. But the figure for Monmouthshire and Newport is 24 per cent., and that area has longer waiting lists than any other part of the Principality. That explains why we are to build a completely new general hospital in Neirlle Hall, Abergavenny, and why we are contemplating the building of a new hospital to replace, phase by phase, the existing Royal Gwent Hospital at Newport. The shortage of beds in Monmouthshire and Newport is more acute than anywhere else in the Principality.
We were all very glad last week to hear the Minister of Health say:
It is not expected that the hospital capital programme already announced for next year in England and Wales will be affected."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1960; Vol. 626, c. 972.]
His reference was to the other Government cuts.
That was very good news, because we believe that we have a terrific backlog to make up in Wales. We have a lot of work to do there to make up for the deficiencies of the past. I certainly rejoice in the tremendous developments at Glangwili, Carmarthen and Singleton, Swansea. Bangor has had a very big scheme, while a completely new mental deficiency hospital is being built at Llanfrechfa Grange, Cwmbran. One is glad to be able to refer to things like that. They all reveal that we are on the high road of progress and moving in the right direction, and that, in the future, we can expect to have some wonderful hospitals in the Principality, as in other parts of the United Kingdom.
I should like to make one appeal here. I cannot claim to speak about architecture—I know nothing about architectural susceptibilities—but when I have visited modern hospitals on the Continent and in other parts of the world I have found that the trend is now towards smaller wards—three-bed wards. For goodness' sake, in these new hospitals, let us not have these fantastically large wards with about thirty or forty patients.
At any given time, in surgical wards as big at that, someone is about to die, and as one who has been in that type of surgical ward I can say quite sincerely that it has a very deleterious influence on the general atmosphere. Let us have


smaller wards. For one thing, in a smaller ward there is much less noise, and noise, I insist, is one of the curses of modern civilisation and must not be tolerated in any modern hospital.
I am fortified in that statement by the recommendations of a sub-committee of the Central Health Services Council, whose Report has just appeared. The sub-committee was set up by the Minister to consider the whole programme of inpatients, day and night, with a view to obviating early awakening and unnecessary noise. For years we have heard about this utterly pointless awakening of poor people—for whom sleep is surely priority No. 1—at 5.30 in the morning, or even earlier; twisting the whole day contrariwise, and making it impossible for people, who for years have been awakened at reasonable times, to fall into a natural routine of living.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to see her Minister about this. Do not let us have this matter pigeon-holed again. This is a serious recommendation by the people who are advising the Minister and the Ministry on a very serious matter. Anybody who has been to a hospital will know that' it is almost callously cruel to awaken people at this very early hour for, seemingly, no good purpose at all.
I do not apologise for referring to noise, because so many patients have told me how they have been disturbed by unnecessary noise in the wards. When people are very ill and in hospital, they are completely dependent on others. They cannot speak for themselves. I have known people who could stand up for their rights as well as the next man, but, in hospital, they are completely dependent on those who are looking after their welfare, and dare not say anything lest the nurse or the sister should take revenge on them for being nosey parkers.
Many of these people have told me, "You know, Mr. Williams, that wireless is driving me crazy." It is a fact that very often in a general surgical ward the ambulant patients, who may have suffered injuries hut whose general health is all right, switch the blaring loudspeaker full on. Let hon. Members think of the effect of that on a poor fellow who has cancer, or on one who has had some very serious abdominal operation. I can assure the Minister that this is a recommendation that he should take up very seriously.
I want now to refer to nursing and to medical staffing problems. It seems that there is no difficulty at all with the general hospitals, but that there is still difficulty with regard to tuberculosis sanatoria and mental hospitals. In theory, the nurses have what is called a 44-hour week, but I have taken up with the Minister cases of nurses who have complained to me that they have had to work for much longer than that.
That is no incentive of recruiting. These girls tell their friends how much longer than the fixed statutory limit they have to work in hospitals. The Parliamentary Secretary, being a lady, should look into this question of the hours these nurses have to work—and I am certain that there is no overtime payment made to them for working more than the 44-hour statutory period.
One of my hon. Friends has referred to the fact that the number of patients attending out-patient departments is less now than it was a year ago but that the number of attendances is higher. I have had fairly considerable experience of out-patient departments, and I should like to know whether the waiting period is less now than it was because, in all conscience, some years ago it was a pretty grim prospect. One almost had to take sandwiches with one, and nothing is more heartbreaking than to sit there in an insalubrious environment seeing everyone else, like oneself, as miserable as sin and waiting for hours and hours.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd put his finger on one possible explanation of this fantastic waiting period in the out-patient departments, when he suggested that it was the result of tardiness and dilatoriness on the part of some consultants, who often do not turn up at the right time and sometimes do not turn up at all.
A further matter was brought to my notice only this week, when I was travelling down the valley to Newport. A gentleman told me that he had been going down to the Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport, for many months, and was likely to have to continue to do so for months ahead. He told me that he had to go down there four times a week and that, at a moderate estimate, he had to pay 11s. or 12s. a week on bus fares. He told me that he was not


in receipt of National Assistance benefit, and that this expense was a terrific drain on what now is a very meagre pittance, a matter of £4 or £5 Industrial Injuries benefit. To take away that amount in expenses from such a person for treatment is a serious deprivation and an act of injustice. I appeal to the Minister to see whether something can be done in these hard cases.
I wish to make cursory reference to what I thought the most dramatic moment in the whole debate when my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool referred to the frightening disparity in the figures of maternity deaths and perinatal deaths in Wales compared with England. I put my position very simply. I am not one who would expect Wales to be better treated than any other part of the United Kingdom, but until I am given a satisfactory explanation why Wales so continuously lags behind England in this respect, I shall join with my hon. Friend in agitating for a change in affairs.
The figures for 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957 and 1958 show that the disparity does not change one iota. We are not happy about this because, as my hon. Friend said, in a sense these are lives which have been taken from our community. There may be explanations which are beyond my comprehension. I do not know exactly what the Welsh Regional Hospital Board meant when it referred to the perinatal mortality and said
the most important factors are not principally medical, but may be rather educational…
Where in thunder does "educational" come in?
and socio-economic.
The Ministry should give us some illumination on this worrying problem. There is no sense whatever in having this continuous disparity.
I now come to an aspect of the Health Service which one is almost tempted to put higher than any other. We are living in a cockeyed world, a tortured civilisation, and the inevitable repercussions are to be seen in mental disorder. I speak with the utmost sincerity when I say that the line between those who have received treatment for mental disorder `nd those of us who have not is a very thin line. A little extra push of

adverse circumstances and we would be where they are. There is no stigma attached to it now, no approbium. In all our references we should regard mental disorder exactly as we regard physical illness.
I was proud to be the only Welshman who served on the Standing Committee which considered the Mental Health Bill and I join with my hon. Friends in saying that it is a great Act of Parliament. Nothing more progressive and forward-looking, nothing more creative has gone through this House than the Mental Health Act, but one question mark is still unresolved. It may be that I am a suspicious kind of person, but thought that the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd half-hearted. Will the Minister answer much more positively and affirmatively? He is in charge of local government. Will he tell us that local health authorities in Britain will be able to carry out the wonderful provisions of the Mental Health Act?
Will the block grant impede the fulfilment of what local authorities can do to change the whole orientation from institutional care with all the institutional neurosis which very often is part of institutional care? Will he help local authorities in after-care and after-treatment? I gave an address on the Mental Health Act in one of the wards of my constituency the other day. I spoke for about an hour on this great theme and at the end of my address someone said, "Yes, it is a wonderful piece of legislation, but how is it going to be carried out?" We are very concerned about that.
I wish to end my speech by talking about the problem of aged people. I cannot think of anything more important in the present context of Wales than the condition of our old people. God knows that financially they are having a desperate time. This is outside the scope of this debate so I cannot speak on it at length, but there are some very worrying figures about the condition of old people. There are one million people in Britain living completely alone and the number is increasing at a tremendous rate from year to year. In the twenty years before 1951 there was a rise of 450,000 people living alone. It is a frightening problem.
I read an article the other day in the Observer by Dr. Marcus Abrahams, who


quoted from a report of the World Health Organisation. It showed that the group in which the highest suicide rate is to be found in Great Britain is that formed by men over 70. We could be absolutely sure that a large percentage of them have been living alone. The young are well looked after because, whatever happens to a youngster, there is either a parent or a school to care for him, but these people suffer and no one knows anything about it until, in desperation, some of them commit suicide. The problem of the aged in Great Britain is very serious, because we are an aging population.
I believe that some wonderful things are being done. Local authorities have a fine record in the provision of residential homes. I have been to some of them and found a lovely atmosphere there. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that the smaller the residential home, the better it is. We do not want a huge home which is something like the old workhouse, but a home which, as mud, as possible, can preserve the atmosphere of the person's own home. That, however, is the last resort. The best thing is to try to help these people in their own homes by health visiting and home visiting.
In that connection I make my final appeal. It is an appeal for more and more co-ordination in the Health Service of Wales and of the United Kingdom, for a better link up between our hospital service, the general practitioner service, local health authorities and ourselves. As people who live in these communities, we should do a sight more than we are doing for our fellow men and women. We should be a bit more neighbourly and sympathetic and prepared to visit people to try to help them.
We must have this liaison between the various branches of the Health Service in Britain. I was disappointed to read about the tardiness of local authorities in operating the provisions made by the Government for a chiropody service. Only four local authorities in Wales are operating a scheme to help old people who suffer from what is a crippling, frustrating and circumscribing ailment. I was terribly disappointed that in the Principality only four local authorities are operating a scheme to help these people in their troubles.
I have tried to cover the ground as well as I could. It has been a very interesting debate. If I close on one note it will be a final appeal for better liaison and co-ordination between the different branches of the Health Service.

7.41 p.m.

The Minister for Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I hope that the hon. Member for Abertillery (The Rev. Ll. Williams) will allow me to take this, my first, opportunity of expressing my sympathy in the House with him over the recent colliery disaster in his constituency, and to say that though an event like that passes out of the newspapers after a time none of us here is likely to forget the sorrow which it leaves behind it among his people.
We are very glad indeed that it fell to the hon. Member to wind up the debate today. None of us has had far from our minds, during its interesting course, the figure of Mr. Aneurin Bevan. I was not able to be at the memorial service on the mountainside the other day—my noble Friend Lord Brecon represented the Government there—but I saw a photograph of it in the Western Mail, and it was a vivid reminder of Mr. Bevan's link with the mining valleys and their pit heaps, the background from which he and many other great Welshmen came.
Aneurin Bevan never forgot the environment in which he grew up as a boy. He came to perform great services for the Heath Service, which we have been discussing this evening. There were those who agreed with him and those who disagreed with him, but this debate would be taking a very different course if the National Health Service had not come into operation in this form in 1948.
No doubt history will judge whether Parliament made a good decision in this epoch-making Session by setting up the Welsh Grand Committee. It has enabled us to have four separate debates on particular aspects of Welsh affairs. In a sense, I missed the old "Welsh day", when we ranged so widely and the Minister had to claim three-quarters of an hour to wind up the debate. It may even be that 'by this system we are leaving out for twelve months an aspect and set of problems to which Parliament


ought to have been giving attention. Nevertheless, I feel quite certain that the experiment has been worth making. We shall all have to decide, a year hence, whether we wish to go back to the old habit of having a free-for-all discussion on "Welsh day" in the Chamber, or whether it is desirable to identify "Welsh day" with one particular chapter in the Annual Report and all that is linked with it.
At any rate, by common consent, we have had an extremely interesting debate. We have ranged widely. The House will not expect me to answer every point which has been raised, but all these points will be noted by the Welsh Board of Health. The Board has been the subject, in 1959, of further devolution of administrative responsibilities from London to Cardiff, and I am sure that that is right. It is in line with the policy which the Government are pursuing and by which, last year, the functions relating to welfare foods and port health administration were transferred from London to the Welsh Board of Health. The Welsh Hospital Board has further developed. There are more women members on that Board, which I am sure is a good thing, and there is a better geographical distribution of the membership.
The matter which has been to the fore in this debate has been the infant mortality rate in Wales. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to that, and rightly so. It is still above the rate in England. It has fallen from 70 per 1,000 thirty years ago, and 39 per 1,000 at the time when the National Health Service was introduced, to 26 per 1,000 last year, a considerable fall, but still too high.
Even if the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) doubts it, I am convinced that there must be truth in the view that it is in part because the women in Wales who are now aged 21 to 35 were born in the period when unemployment was far too heavy and poverty too prevalent in the mining towns, where so large a part of the Welsh population was concentrated. My noble Friend Lord Brecon and I have been working to get the whole of the Principality on to a sound economic basis, with no pockets of worklessness, even in Anglesey or Caernarvonshire soon, I hope, and with

a wider diversity of industries as a protection against the knock-out of a whole community in the event of a slump in one industry.
The first outward evidence of that improved economic health can be seen in the unemployment figures, but the Government are building for the future here. If we can achieve a high and steady level of employment generally throughout Wales, we shall be laying the foundations not only of a happier, but of a healthier Wales for years to come, and we shall surely be helping the mind as well as the body, because the fear of the return of unemployment has eaten deeply into the minds of thousands of people in Wales. If we can drive out that mental horror we shall be strengthening the mind as well as the body of the Welsh nation of the future.
Nothing gives me greater pleasure, when I go about Wales, than to see the children, clearly getting plenty of food and in the main with a background of happiness in their homes. The House will see that I am not at all complacent about the infant mortality rate, but the hon. Member for Pontypool suggested that no adequate inquiries were being made. The National Birthday Trust Inquiry, as I think he must realise, covers Wales as well as England; it is a general inquiry and its findings are awaited. When we have the report of the inquiry we shall be in a very much better position to see the whole picture for Wales as well as for England.
The hon. Member also spoke about psychiatry. He said that the medical graduates of Wales were, psychiatrically speaking, illiterate. He made a lot of other somewhat discourteous remarks about the medical world in Wales, which I certainly do not intend to repeat. He must have it out with them. I know that he felt that it was his duty to speak what he thought in the House, but he appeared to me to be washing a certain amount of Welsh dirty medical linen in public. His words are on record. I must leave them to be read. We shall see whether those people in the medical service, in the hospital service, and elsewhere in Wales, will accept that the state of affairs is as unworthy as he suggested that it was.
With regard to psychiatric appointments, the consultant establishment in Wales has been increased from 16 to 26


since 1949. Further additions are planned, but the supply of consultant psychiatrists is not easy. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that a chair of psychiatry is needed in the University of Wales. Certainly, my hope is that there will be such a chair before long.
The hon. Gentleman spoke also of the need for more geriatric beds. The present building plans in Wales will very substantially help in that direction over the next few years. Geriatric units are to be provided in the main acute hospitals—in Newport, Cardiff, Bridgend, Swansea, Carmarthen, Pontypridd, Bangor, Aberystwyth and Wrexham. Consultant geriatricians have been appointed at Caernarvon, Merthyr, and Swansea. It is significant that when a post in Cardiff was advertised no applications were received. That shows that it is not altogether easy to add to these appointments. Additional appointments are contemplated in the next year or so in Wrexham, Newport, Pontypridd, Clwyd and Deeside, but the timing of these appointments must depend on the availability of suitable applicants.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the architecture of the new hospital. As Minister of Housing and Local Government, I find that people's architectural tastes differ. It is not the whole architectural profession or the whole body of people with architectural taste, either in Wales or England, who would necessarily agree with everything that is said in the Architects' Journal. I doubt whether any selected design for this hospital would have given complete satisfaction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) in his interesting speech, called attention to the fact that the chapter dealing with this year in the Annual Report is less full and informative than was the same chapter last year. That is absolutely true. Last year, a special chapter was inserted because it was the tenth anniversary of the National Health Service in Wales. I do not know whether I am right, but what I have been seeking to do in the editing of the Annual Report on Welsh affairs is to try to single out one subject after another for a special periodical chapter. I hope that in the last three or four years the Report has become more interesting to read and more informative generally, but, as I have said on previous "Welsh

days", I am always happy to receive suggestions from hon. Members on both sides as to ways in which we could increase its value.
My hon. Friend referred to hospital waiting lists. We can proudly say that the percentage reduction in the waiting lists in Wales has been substantially larger than the percentage reduction in England. Again, we are not at the end there. There is a great deal more to be done. My hon. Friend spoke of the shortage of dentists. That is undoubtedly one of the very serious features of the whole situation in Wales. That is why it is so extremely important that we should make rapid progress with the new dental school and hospital. I know that it is the intention of my right hon. and learned Friend to see that that is done.
The position with dentists contrasts so markedly with the position with doctors. In 1949, there were 1,021 general practitioners in Wales. In 1959, there were 1,293. It is that fact which has brought the average doctor's list down over that period from 2,464 to 2,011. All that movement is in the right direction, but I do not deny for one moment that the dental situation in Wales is very unsatisfactory and needs to be rectified.
Reference was made by several hon. Gentlemen to the need for further consultant appointments. I do not demur to that, but I must point out that there has been a 50 per cent. increase in the number of consultant appointments in the last 10 years. I am advised that the figure in 1949 was 242. The figure in 1959 was 368. In that time, alongside the dramatic reduction in tuberculosis and the waiting list for tuberculosis beds, there has been an increase of 45 per cent. in the total number of in-patients treated in hospitals in Wales and Monmouthshire.
I do not mention these facts to suggest that everything is well and that there is no more to be done. I do so because it is desirable to get all this in perspective. During the course of a debate whose proceedings will be widely read in Wales, hon. Gentlemen on both sides, naturally, draw attention to individual facets where they think that there is a shortcoming. That is what our debates are for. It is important, also, that those of us who have to look at the whole picture should set the various shortcomings against the


general pattern of progress which has been made so that we keep all of it in perspective.

Mr. A. Pearson: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to say something about the missed sessions of consultants?

Mr. Brooke: I very much doubt whether I am qualified to say anything on that subject. I will certainly bring it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health has heard it. The Minister for Welsh Affairs has many duties and interests, but this is not a matter which has ever been drawn to his attention before. I certainly will consider further what the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. A. Pearson) said in his very interesting speech on that and other subjects.
The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. I. Davies) asked why the mass radiography unit had been closed. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Rees), in a speech which was very rightly described as a thoughtful one, gave the answer, or, at any rate, part of the answer, This unit was the responsibility of the Hospital Board, but located in a health authority building. It has been the general policy to try to place these units so that they are fully employed and also to place them in situations where the most effective use in detecting disease can be obtained. I quite agree that the new hospital is not quite so central, but I am not sure how many people, when they are walking casually along the street, go in and have themselves photographed. I think that it happens much more naturally when they are sent by the doctor, or when they are attending as an out-patient at a hospital.
In this hospital the unit will be receiving patients sent along by general practitioners. In addition, an acute hospital such as this is will offer the facilities to the large number of out-patients who will come to the hospital. Then the hospital will be able to carry out more work with the same staff, which it is well equipped to do. Experience will show that there is not a falling off in attendances and that more use can be made of the unit. At any rate, I would appeal to everyone to give the new scheme a chance.

Mr. I. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman said that he was not sure of the number of people who volunteer. I quoted figures of 4,000 to 5,000 people who had volunteered. My criticism is also confirmed by the Welsh Regional Hospital Board itself.

Mr. Brooke: All that I am saying to the hon. Gentleman is that we should now give the new scheme a chance. If what I have said or my hon. Friend has said is wrong, I should be the first to admit it, because I seek to be frank on these matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box) said that clean food was more important than clean beaches. Clean beaches are important, but all the evidence I have on these environmental health matters is that one will safeguard one's own fitness much more by taking care about the food one eats than by taking care where one bathes. We had a debate about this not long ago and I did not deny that there was health risk in bathing on polluted beaches. I can think of some beaches in South Wales where I hope that a new sewerage treatment works will make a great difference. The risk of disease is much greater from polluted or diseased food than it is from bathing in the sea anywhere I know around those coasts.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) referred to Strontium 90. I would express the hope that the fears that have spread in Wales about Strontium 90 should now be stilled. Experts have published a great deal of factual material about this. It is known that deposits of Strontium 90 are falling and that the amount of Strontium 90 in milk is falling. I believe that it will do only harm to Wales and Welsh farmers, and do no good to anyone, if continued fears about Strontium 90 in Wales are expressed.
The hon. Member was another who complained that the chapter in the Report was not full enough and did not deal with the work of the executive councils and the like. I say again that we have to be selective in the Report, otherwise it would swell to gargantuan proportions. If there have been omissions this year, we will try to make up for them another year.
The hon. Member for Swansea, West also suggested uniting the rehabilitation services. These services, if I remember rightly, were further referred to by the hon. Member for Abertillery. These are wide questions. They go far beyond the confines of Wales. They are very different services. Some of them are industrial, some medical, some educational and social in their general form. I cannot say more than that I have taken note of what was said today and I entirely agree about their importance.
The hon. Member for Abertillery was fearful lest very large hospital wards were to be constructed in the new hospitals That is not so. Even where the wards are large they will be divided up into sections so that people will no longer have the experience, which I have had, of being ill in a very large ward where some other people may be dying. Quite frankly, unless I were very seriously ill I would much rather be in a large ward for the interest of it than in a small ward where, I think, life can be extremely dull. I assure the hon. Member that these matters are not overlooked in the planning of the new hospitals.
The hon. Member referred to the maternity mortality rate. I do not know whether it was by a slip of the tongue. The maternity mortality rate is comparable with that in England. There is little difference between the two. It is in the infant mortality rate that there is still a large discrepancy. He also asked whether local authorities would be able to carry out their duties under the Mental Health Act. Frankly, it is up to them. I put my faith in the Welsh local authorities. They have been producing their schemes. The schemes, so far as one has seen them up to date, look good and there is no reason at all why we should not look forward with confidence to speedy development of the mental health service in Wales.
If I may sound a critical note for a moment, it sometimes troubles me that six out of the 17 local welfare authorities in Wales have not yet taken power to provide welfare services for the deaf and dumb, and five of the local authorities have not taken similar power to provide services for cripples, epileptics and spastics. The Welsh Hospital Board is

endeavouring to encourage action on these lines and I hope that hon. Members who have constituencies concerned may be able to stimulate the local authorities to take action.

The Rev. LI. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman said that my figure was not correct. I am quoting from the Welsh Hospital Board's Report. It states:
In Wales the number of deaths under one year the perinatal mortality rate and the maternity mortality rate is appreciably higher than the rate for England and Wales.
My figures are quite correct.

Mr. Brooke: I am quoting figures provided for me by the Welsh Board of Health, which show that the maternity mortality rate in Wales has been barely different at all from the rate in England. I will look into the matter, and if I am wrong I will certainly let the hon. Gentleman know.
I apologise to hon. Members if they have raised points which I have missed. I have endeavoured, as I hope the House will agree, to make an honourable effort to pick up most of the questions raised in the debate. I should like to go back for a moment to the improvement in the tuberculosis figures. We owe that partly to research, partly to the work of the surgeons, and partly to the general advance in the standard of living. It is a tremendous improvement when one thinks back to the tuberculosis scourge in Wales not so very long ago. What we should do is to express gratitude in all directions for the courses and factors which have transformed the situation.
I have spoken today with a sense of deep responsibility about the health services in Wales. I recognise as clearly as anybody how much more there is to be done, but I ask all hon. Members, when they express criticism as to particular defects and shortcomings, not to do so in terms which may be distressing to those who are at work in the National Health Service throughout Wales, whether in the domiciliary health service the general practitioner service or the hospital service.
There is a great deal to be proud of in Wales. The Principality has not only produced brilliant doctors, physicians and surgeons. It has also shown a remarkable advance over the years in the general provision of health services for the people. Let us be proud of that.


Let us keep that in our minds and be tireless, one and all, in seeking to make what is already good better still.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Report on Developments and Government Action in Wales and Monmouthshire for 1959 (Command Paper No. 961).

WELSH BROADCASTING COUNCIL (CHAIRMAN)

8.11 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the action of Her Majesty's Government in appointing to the position of chairman of the Broadcasting Council for Wales and Welsh National Governor on the British Broadcasting Corporation's Board of Governors a person who does not fulfil the requirements of the British Broadcasting Corporation's Charter.
In a fairly long experience of public life in Wales I have never before known of an appointment by a Government to a public post in the Principality which aroused such bitter controversy and evoked such deep and widespread resentment and such universal condemnation of those who made the appointment as the appointment which is the subject of this Motion. Other appointments have been made by this Government in recent years and months which have aroused comment in the Principality, some of which have been thought by many to be due more to the need to reward people for services to the party than appropriateness and capacity for the job. But we are a very tolerant people and we have let them go.
I wonder whether we have been too tolerant—I wonder whether we have shown an excess of gallantry, if I may put it in that way to the Prime Minister. I wonder whether we should not have spoken much more firmly about these appointments. When I recall how hon. Members opposite behaved when we were in Government and the continuous smear campaign which went on about "jobs for the boys" then all I can say is that we have yet some way to go before we catch up with the party opposite.
Perhaps because we have been so silent they have come to the conclusion that they can treat us with contempt.

They will know now, as this House knows, that this last appointment has caused an explosion of public feeling throughout the whole of the Principality. Protests have come in from people in all walks of life in Wales, from the bishop's palace to the peasant's cottage, from the academic world and from industry, from the English-speaking people in Wales as well as the Welsh-speaking people.
I wish to begin by seeking to explain Why this is so as I understand it. I can do that only if I may be allowed the indulgence of the House to explain how this post comes to have a special importance for Wales and her people. Indeed, in so many respects it is now, and will be even more in the future as the great service develops, a post of unique importance in the Principality.
This takes me back, as it must, to say something about the history which led to the creation of this post. When ten years ago the Beveridge Committee was set up to consider and report on the future of broadcasting in this country a proposal was put before the Committee for the setting up of a separate and independent broadcasting corporation for Wales and Monmouthshire. The proposal was supported by the Welsh Parliamentary Party. I wish to quote the reasons that induced the Welsh Parliamentary Party, representing all hon. Members Who at that time represented constituencies in Wales and Monmouthshire, to urge that there should be set up a separate broadcasting corporation because they are relevant to the issues raised by this appointment. If hon. Members wish to read them in full they will find them published as an Appendix to the Report of the Beveridge Committee.
In its Memorandum, the Welsh Parliamentary Party stated:
We make this request for the following reasons: Wales is a separate nation, conscious of its nationality as being distinct from the other nations inhabiting this island. Wales has a living language of its own, with a literature in that language…We regard broadcasting as having a specially potent influence on life—culturally and socially.
I ask the House to note the next paragraph in the Memorandum, which states:
We are confident that placed in the hands of Welsh men knowing their audience and sympathetic to our Welsh way of life, broadcasting would become a far more powerful influence for good than it is at present.


They went on to stress that those who care for the preservation of the Welsh language realise that now we are facing what, perhaps, in many ways is the biggest danger now and in the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins), who was then and is still the secretary of the Welsh Parliamentary Party, tells me that there was not a single dissentient vote on this proposal. Among others—I mention him because he was a member of the Broadcasting Council—was Sir David Llewellyn who was then the Member for Cardiff, North.
This proposal went before the Beveridge Committee which discussed it in its Report. The Committee reported that the case for devolution had been fully made out. It indicated that the case for devolution rested in part, indeed in a substantial part, on the need to ensure that the cultural characteristics of the nation were preserved on the ether and given their full opportunity. It rejected the proposal for a separate and independent broadcasting corporation, but recommended that, first, a national governor for Wales should be appointed to serve on the Board of the British Broadcasting Corporation. Secondly, it recommended that a Broadcasting Council for Wales should be set up over which a national governor would preside. Perhaps I may be allowed to remind the House that among the members of the Committee making these recommendations was my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) and the present Foreign Secretary. They both supported the recommendations, as did all the other Members.
These recommendations were accepted by the Government and embodied in a charter, and, therefore, for the first time, about ten years ago we had a national governor for Wales appointed to the Board of the British Broadcasting Corporation. We had set up a Broadcasting Council for Wales. Our Motion says that the appointment which has been made fails to fulfil the terms of the Charter. I wish to read again—it has been read before; I quoted it to the Prime Minister—what is said in the Charter. This Government brought that Charter to the House. These are the requirements to which the Government

are committed and we are judging them on their own standards. The National Governor for Wales
…shall have been selected for appointment as Governor in virtue of his knowledge of the culture, characteristics and affairs of our people in Wales and his close touch with Welsh opinion…".
I will return to this, but I am sure that I am speaking for the overwhelming majority of the Welsh people when I say that this appointment does not meet the requirements laid down in the Charter.
This broadcasting council was set up, and in the Charter it is given certain functions and powers. First, the Broadcasting Council for Wales is given the control of policy and the content of programmes
provided primarily for the people of Wales.
On sound, half the broadcasts provided primarily for the people of Wales are in the Welsh language, and a very large proportion of the programmes now provided on television, which was in its infant stages then, are also in the Welsh language.
In addition to having the control of policy and the content of programmes, the Broadcasting Council for Wales also has the duty and the responsibility, through the Governor who represents Wales on the Corporation, of advising the B.B.C. on all its programmes in so far as they affect the interests, characteristics and culture of the people of Wales. This indicates what an important post this is and what very great responsibilities they are. It seems to me to indicate that very great care should be taken in the appointment, and it is because we are satisfied that this appointment fails to meet those requirements that we are compelled, in the service of our people, to put this Motion on the Order Paper. Our Motion condemns the Government for the reasons that I have given.
We 'have not got too much time left. Some of our time was taken quietly away——

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I was not able to rise to speak in the last debate until twenty minutes to eight.

Mr. Griffiths: Anyhow, we lost some time. Let me put it that way. I could


quote many protests that have been received from many walks of life in Wales, but for brevity's sake I will content myself with quoting only from the memorandum sent to the Prime Minister by six out of the eight members who serve on the Broadcasting Council for Wales. I am going to rest my case on them, and I shall quote only them this evening, not because I could not quote others but for this reason: surely, they are the people best able to judge whether this is a good appointment or not. They are the people who are engaged in the work. They have had experience of it. They are members of the Broadcasting Council.
They were compelled to take what, in my experience, is an unprecedented step; I do not remember it happening before. After calm deliberation, the members of the Council have felt it their duty to protest to the Prime Minister against the appointement of the person appointed as the Chairman. They have stated their views in the memorandum to the Prime Minister. Let me say to the Prime Minister that one of the things which he has to do is to reply to them, for as yet no adequate reply has been given. No attempt has been made to do so. The only attempt at a reply was made, not by the Prime Minister replying to the Council but by the Prime Minister replying to a former Member of this House, Sir Henry Morris-Jones.
Let me state what their case is. In their memorandum to the Prime Minister they began by citing the terms of the charter which I have already cited to the House. Having done that, they referred to this appointment by asking whether the appointment fulfils the requirements of the Charter. Then they came to this conclusion:
We regret that this cannot be said of the present appointee.
They gave the reasons, and I want to cite the reasons:
We cannot avoid the conclusion that, recalling her scanty knowledge of the Welsh language, her acquaintance with Welsh life and culture is extremely limited. Half the broadcasts for which the Council has the main responsibility are in the Welsh language—which the new Chairman will not be able to understand.
No one can imagine this situation in any other bilingual country in the world. It is true that a knowledge of Welsh is

not a condition of appointment, as the Prime Minister told us, but they then refer to another qualification, which might have compensated for the disadvantage of not knowing the Welsh language. They say:
Active participation in national affairs over a long period of years could no doubt compensate for this grave disadvantage…but the fact that the new Chairman is unknown outside Brecon indicates neither a lively interest in the nation's life nor the close touch with Welsh opinion required by the Charter.
For that reason they ask the Prime Minister to consider the matter and to appoint someone else who would match up to the requirements laid down by the Charter. Up to now the Prime Minister has refused.
Lest it be thought, as it may be, that this agitation is the agitation of a few, of some cranks or narrow, sectarian Welsh partisan people, let me say something about the six men who signed this document. They are a very good cross-section of the Welsh people. They are people whose great service to our country deserves tribute and praise in this House. Amongst them are the Chairman for very many years of the Glamorgan Education Committee—our largest county. Then there is the Chairman of the Radnor Education Committee who is this year the High Sheriff for the county. It includes the conductor of one of our most famous choirs and the son of one of the most gifted families in Wales which has made its contribution to broadcasting not only in Wales but in the kingdom as a whole. It includes the President of the Plaid Cymru, the Welsh National Party, and the Secretary of the Welsh Council of Labour, representative of the trade union, co-operative and Labour parties in Wales, which are not unimportant in the Principality, as hon. Members have discovered to their cost. It includes Mr. Hugh Morris-Jones, a man of great distinction, a son of the cottage who attained academic distinction, and who is one of the ablest men in the University of Wales in these days.
Those are the six men who have protested. Dismiss, if we like, the extravagant protests from everybody else, but this protest, coming from these six men who have had experience of the work, who realise its vital importance to Wales and who have been gravely—I say this advisedly—disappointed at the action of


the Government in appointing Mrs. Rachel Jones to this position, and who have asked the Prime Minister to reconsider the appointment, in itself, I think, justifies the vote of condemnation which we have put down this evening.
I said that we have not had any adequate reply. The Prime Minister replied to Sir Henry Morris-Jones who served in this House on the benches opposite for very many years, and who wrote protesting to the Prime Minister accusing '.he Government of many things, including tactlessness, in this appointment. The Prime Minister wrote to him, and I want to refer to what is the relevant part of that reply.
The Prime Minister said that he recommended Mrs. Rachel Jones—
only after the most careful consideration of the candidates available.
I want to ask the Minister, because this is the reply to Wales, and I think we are entitled to ask, if the Prime Minister tells us that he recommended her—
only after the most careful consideration of the candidates available,
who prepared the list of available candidates? Can we see the list? I ask the Minister this in all seriousness. He has had many years' experience. Does he say that, of all the men and women in Wales available for consideration for this post—does he dare get up and say—that this is the best one? That is what the Prime Minister said: If the Minister does so, no one in Wales will believe him. I do not think that any hon. Member opposite will dare to get up and say that this is the best person of all those available in Wales. I invite hon. Members opposite to do so. If they do, not even their constituents and supporters will believe them. I will give way if any hon. Member wants to do so.

Hon. Members: Come on.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. If an hon. Member does not choose to rise, he is under no obligation to do so.

Mr. Griffiths: Their silence is more eloquent than anything they can say.
One last word, for I want to give other hon. Members a chance. It is not such a long time ago that we had a General Election. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that an hon. Member says "Hear, hear"; perhaps he will

listen to what I have to say. When the General Election took place, the party opposite made many promises and many pledges to Wales and her people. It seemed to be very determined to get more supporters in Wales. It has never been very fortunate in that respect, and so it issued an election broadsheet, entitled "A New Era for Wales", which was circulated in Cardiff, North, in Barry, in Swansea, West and elsewhere. Hon. Members opposite all know this and are very proud of it.
On the back, we have a picture of the Minister, a very good one.
He's Your Voice in the Cabinet
it says, and then, on page 2, there is an article in Welsh. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."] I do not know whether it is the original or a translation. The heading is, "Codi'r Hen Wlad"—"Raising the Old Country". For the benefit of hon. Members in the House and for the benefit of the Minister, I want to make a quotation from it, but I propose to translate it into English. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I could read it in Welsh, but I propose to read it in English, or one paragraph from it. It says:
The Conservatives have a special responsibility to preserve the Welsh language"—
hon. Members should listen to that—
for to preserve is one of the fundamental principles of Conservatism.
It goes on to say:
The Welsh language has its special friends in the Conservative Government"——

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Griffiths: Cyfeillion arbennig. The quotation goes an:
…not only Mr. Henry Brook…ebut also Mr. Butler"—
the Prime Minister must be careful. He is not referred to there; he must remember that when he is considering changes during the next few days—
who has declared that, as a Cornishman who deeply regrets that his own native Cornish tongue has been destroyed and forgotten, he is determined to see that the Welsh language does not disappear from our midst".
Those were the words of last October. I have read the terms of the Charter. I have read the Tory election manifesto. The Government have violated the Charter in this appointment. It is not the first charter that they have violated;


indeed, they seem almost to take pride in violating charters.
All my life I have been proud of my language. It was my first language. I was not taught Welsh in the day school I attended. It was not permitted. I learned Welsh in the Sunday school and at home. I want to keep it alive—it is a big struggle—and, at the same time, keep what is very precious, the unity of the English-speaking and the Welsh-speaking people of the Principality. It was my very great privilege, before I came to the House, to be President of the South Wales miners and to have Welsh-speaking and English-speaking colleagues among our members.
One of the great disservices that the Government have done by this appointment, and one of the great disservices which the Prime Minister has done in trying to justify it, has been to try to divide the one-third who speak Welsh from the two-thirds who do not. I resent it when people talk about the one-third who speak Welsh—I am one of them—as if they were the servants in the outer hall. We are entitled to our language, and we are entitled to seek to preserve it. But we want to preserve it with the good will of everyone else.
Both English-speaking and Welsh-speaking people believe that, in this appointment, the Government have flouted the wishes of the people of our country. I ask the Minister to think about it again. There are scores of people better fitted for the post. There are scores of people, even in the Conservative Party, better fitted for it—I do not want to make it a party matter—scores of people who know the language and understand it, or, even if they do not, who could have been appointed. Among those who do not understand the language there are people who could have been appointed without complaint and without such a Motion as this.
We do not believe the Government when they tell us that, having had a list before them of the available candidates in Wales for the post, they have appointed the one best fitted for it. We do not believe it. Wales will not believe it. That is why we shall vote for the Motion this evening and that is why we shall, in doing so, carry with us the good wishes and support of the majority of people in our country.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) presented a case in which he undoubtedly and sincerely believes that he is expressing the united view of all the people of Wales. But I doubt whether that is so. Also, he enjoyed himself to some extent at the expense of the party on this side of the House. Although he made fun of the number of people in Wales who support the Conservative Party, I would remind him that one-third of all the people in Wales voted Conservative at the last General Election. That number is growing.
In considering this Motion, I think that we must pay a little more attention to the wording of the Charter than the right hon. Gentleman devoted to it. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it states that the person should be selected
in virtue of his knowledge of the culture, characteristics and affairs of Our People in Wales and his close touch with Welsh opinion.
The first important factor to note is that there is no reference to the Welsh language. [Hon. Member: "That is what it says."] I am willing to concede that I would regard a knowledge of the Welsh language as a very valuable asset. I would go further. If some deus ex machina had granted to me the difficult job of selecting this person, it is highly likely that I would have tended to select a person with a considerable knowledge of the Welsh language. I concede all that.

Mr. Charles Pannell: That is kind of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Gower: It is clear from this wording that a knowledge of the Welsh language and fluency in Welsh speaking are not essential for this post. What is specified is that the person selected should have a
knowledge of the culture, characteristics and affairs of Our People in Wales.
I like to think that those who framed this description had in mind a wider description, namely, that the person should have a deep and generous sympathy for Wales and all things Welsh.
These words are not easily capable of precise definition. What is Welsh culture? What indeed is a Welshman? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I like to think that a definition I once framed


would be more accurate than many I have heard. My own definition—and it it purely my own—is that he or she is a person who, on hearing the tone of the Welsh hymn "Pa dduw syn maddau fel tydu" would find a shiver going down his or her spine.

Mr. C. Pannell: Like that which the hon. Member's speeches give us.

Mr. Gower: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not find a shiver running down his spine.
Under this definition, it is likely that many present Welsh Members would qualify, but if an ability to speak Welsh fluently were the test it is true that many Welsh Members would not qualify.
What is Welsh culture? Is it limited to the art and writing of those familiar with the Welsh language or Welsh-speaking people? While all may admit the poetry of Dafydd ap Gwilym, would they just as readily accept the poetry of Dylan Thomas, Alun Lewis or Vernon Watkins, or the prose writings of Rhys Davies and Glyn Jones? I submit that our Welsh culture is not easily capable of precise definition.
Nor are the characteristics and affairs of the people of Wales easy to define. The characteristics of a Welsh-speaking hill farmer in Merioneth or Denbigh or a school teacher in Cardigan are somewhat different from those of an English-speaking coal miner in the Rhondda or the Rhymney Valley. I know a railway worker in my constituency who is entirely Welsh by birth who knows only a few words of Welsh and has no knowledge of Welsh literature, and who yet would be easily distinguished as a Welshman.
Then again, let us consider the affairs of Wales. Affairs which concern a hotel keeper in Barmouth are somewhat different from those which concern a tinplate worker in Llanelly. The member of a N.U.M. lodge in Caerphilly has a different outlook from that of the average slate worker of North Wales.
Finally, we turn to the phrase
…close touch with Welsh opinion.
There are truly wide divergencies of opinion in different parts of the Principality. One simple example was the very great division in the Liberal Party in South and North Wales fifty

years ago, when the North supported the idea of Home Rule which was rejected completely in South Wales.
Then we must relate these specified requirements to the personality of the new Chairman, to this lady under discussion. I confess that when I first heard the news of this appointment I shared many of the feelings expressed by critics today. This lady had one or two obvious disadvantages. [Interruption.] I heard the news on the radio when I was shaving one morning. I readily admit that the name was not a familiar one. [Interruption.] She was not one of those stalwarts who served so valiantly on our numerous committees in Wales, nor indeed was she known politically. Here I refer to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly said—this was in no sense a political appointment. [HON. MEMBERS: "How does the hon. Member know?"] The right hon. Gentleman said so himself. He said that there were plenty of political figures, even in the Conservative Party, who could have been appointed with far less criticism. Mrs. Jones has not been identified with the work of any political party in Wales.
I have the highest admiration—as I am sure everybody who knows his work has—for her very distinguished predecessor Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor. He was well qualified and has done an excellent job, but his appointment was undoubtedly a party political appointment of a former Labour Member of Parliament on the recommendation of a Labour Prime Minister.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I am sorry to disabuse the hon. Member. The Broadcasting Council for Wales' National Governor fell to be appointed by his own party.

Mr. Gower: I readily withdraw. The present appointment is certainly not a political one. If we are not sometimes prepared to look outside the ranks of those active within our political parties we may deprive Wales unnecessarily of much talent.
Then there was the problem of Mrs. Jones not being known widely for her work on various committees or councils. The North American Indians used to carry their qualifications with them in the form of scalps which they had collected.


In Wales we have had a tendency sometimes to carry with us our qualifications in the form of the number of committees on which we have served. It may well be an advantage and a useful new departure that this much criticised appointment takes us outside the normal field of selection.
Then there was a feeling which I had when I first heard the news, that Mrs. Jones was not well known. That no longer obtains. Today she is possibly the best-known of any Welsh women since Queen Boadicea. [Laughter.] What is more, she has a far greater opportunity of realising the peccadilloes of our countrymen than Queen Boadicea ever had.
She bears, as somebody observed, the honoured name of Jones, which is as Schmidt in Germany, or Smith in England, and the first name of Rachel reminds us of the readiness of the Welsh people for generations to choose old Biblical Hebrew names.
On 12th July, the Prime Minister wrote a letter, published in The Times, in reply to a former hon. Member, Sir Henry Morris-Jones and said:
…the most important part of Mrs. Jones's task will be the advocacy of the Welsh point of view within the corporation. For this purpose Mrs. Jones is admirably suited by her personality, her abilities, and her deep interest in and her devotion to Wales.
Her abilities are such that for no party political reasons she has commended herself not only to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but also to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welsh Affairs. She has commended herself in that way without possessing the trimmings which usually attract attention. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame. Withdraw."] Mrs. Jones is Welsh-born and lives in Wales and has had some experience of broadcasting overseas.

Mr. William Ross: To the North American Red Indians?

Mr. Gower: In these circumstances, I make no complaint at the form of criticism of hon. Members opposite in the past, but I complain only of their tendency to press their criticisms too far and for too long. Instead of continuing to harry this woman mercilessly, the critics of Mrs. Jones should now give her a chance to get on with her job.

8.54 p.m.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) began by saying that had the appointment of a Chairman of the Welsh Broadcasting Council been in his hands he would have chosen a Welsh-speaking person. It therefore seems a pity that the whole of his speech was devoted to explaining why such a qualification was entirely unnecessary. I thought that he did not treat the subject, which to the people of Wales is a matter of great concern, with the seriousness which it deserves.
The hon. Gentleman said that the appointment commended itself to the Prime Minister and to the Minister for Welsh Affairs. I think that what the hon. Gentleman really intended to do was to commend himself to the Minister.

Mr. Gower: The hon. Lady suggests that I am less than serious in my approach to this problem. Can she not appreciate what kind of unruly audience I had on her side of the House?

Lady Megan Lloyd George: I think that the hon. Gentleman realises that his speech was bound to provoke the feelings that it did.
I support the views that have been put forward this evening by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). This appointment is totally unacceptable to Welsh people, for several reason's. There are many appointments in Wales for which the Welsh language is not an absolutely essential qualification, but this appointment is not in that category. No one can argue that it is not absolutely essential for the Head of the Department of Welsh Education, or Her Majesty's Inspector of Schools, to have a knowledge of the Welsh language. I believe that this appointment is in that same category.
As the one and only Welsh member of the Beveridge Committee on Broadcasting, I should like to say that its Report laid down as a specific function of the Welsh Council the control of policy and content of the programmes of the Welsh Home Service. As 'has already been pointed out many times in this House, 50 per cent. of the programmes are in Welsh, and hon. Members must


surely agree that it is a little difficult to control the content of a programme without a knowledge of the language.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly pointed out, very special responsibilities are laid on the Chairman of the Council. He is specially chosen because of his knowledge—not second-hand knowledge with the assistance of an interpreter, but first-hand knowledge—of, the culture of our people in Wales. That qualification, as laid down in the Charter, cannot be quoted too often.
The hon. Member for Barry asked us what was Welsh culture. He became lyrical on this point. I will give him the answer. It cannot be too often stressed that the key, and the only key, to the Welsh culture of centuries is the Welsh language. The hon. Gentleman asked whether Welsh culture extended to modern times. Of course it does, but Welsh culture does not begin and end with Dylan Thomas and Gwyn Thomas.
If, therefore, the qualification about culture, specified in the Charter, is to be fulfilled, with the best will in the world no one can fulfil that requirement without a knowledge of the Welsh language and it is a travesty of the facts to say that anyone can do so.
It has been suggested that an injustice might conceivably be done to our non-Welsh speaking countrymen, but it is not we who are asking for a monoglot chairman. On the contrary, we are asking for a bilingual chairman. We are doing this because we believe that only by having a bilingual chairman will justice be done to all the people in Wales, both Welsh speaking and non-Welsh speaking. If anyone is trying to create a rift between the Welsh-speaking and non-Welsh speaking people—something which I deplore with all my heart—it is the Government, by this provocative act.
It is also laid down in the Charter that the Welsh governor should be appointed because of his close touch with Welsh public opinion. The mere fact that this lady did not realise that her appointment would rouse a storm of protest proves more conclusively than almost anything else could do that she is completely out of touch with Welsh public opinion. She is almost as much out of touch with it as is the Minister for Welsh Affairs himself. Not since his

earlier blunder over Tryweryn has there been such a universal condemnation of Government action in Wales. It has cut across party alignments and party loyalties.
All sections of the community have been affected—principals of colleges, professors of the university, men and women distinguished in science, the arts and literature, social workers, local councillors, county councillors, the Council of Free Churches in Wales, and the Church of Wales, through its official organ and through a most remarkable diocesan letter from the Bishop of Bangor. That is a formidable array. Finally, there is the protest of the Broadcasting Council itself—the body over which Mrs. Jones has been elected to preside. They are distinguished men, who have some knowledge and practical experience of the work that the Council will be undertaking. They, too, say in emphatic terms, that she is totally unsuited for the task.
All this—the real voice of Wales—the Prime Minister has brushed aside and dismissed with contempt. In fairness, I would add that it is* probable that most of the blame for this rests upon the shoulders of the Minister for Welsh Affairs. Presumably it is he who bears the main responsibility with the very active assistance of his noble Friend the Minister of State for Welsh Affairs, who no doubt had a lot to do with the names on the list. It is rumoured that the right hon. Gentleman may be involved in impending Cabinet changes. Hon. Members on this side of the House hope that that rumour is well founded.

Mr. Ross: But they might make him Secretary of State for Scotland.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: We have far too great a respect for our Scottish colleagues than to wish them such But we will give him to them gladly as a free gift if only they will accept him.
But the sooner the Prime Minister changes his adviser on Welsh Affairs the better it will be for Wales—although the worse it may be for other parts of Britain. We are not alone in our disapproval of the right hon. Gentleman. He is net everyone's choice, even among hon. Members opposite. The Sunday


Express last week, discussing and assessing the right hon. Member's future prospects, said:
A despondent sigh greets every mention of Mr. Henry Brooke's name.
I can assure him that it will not be a sigh that will greet his parting from Wales. It will be Gorfoledd a Mawl. I will interpret that as well as I can for the right hon. Gentleman, and say to him that when he leaves the bells will ring and the flags will fly in the consciousness of Wales.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly when he said that we in Wales do not regard this appointment as an isolated instance. We believe it to be part of a concerted attempt to bring back what I would call the old hierarchy, which was completely out of touch with the real life of Wales and of its people. We think that the hon. Member for Barry confirmed that in his speech. He said, "We want to go outside the ordinary, usual circles in Wales." I tell the right hon. Gentleman that any attempt to bring back the old Establishment in Wales will fail, as it failed fifty and sixty years ago—and as it will fail every time that it is attempted.
Tonight, we can be voted down. We probably shall be voted down, but we shall be voted down by Conservative Members of Parliament representing English constituencies. If they do that, I would ask hon. Members to realise that they will be voting down the great majority of the elected representatives of Wales in this House, and the declared view of the majority of the people of Wales.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Donald Box: Complaining about appointments in Wales has for so long been the national pastime that any appointment that does not arouse some controversy is 'always slightly suspect. It therefore comes as no surprise to the people of Wales that the Opposition have signified their disapproval of the appointment of Mrs. Rachel Jones as National Governor of the B.B.C. in Wales.
What is surprising, though, is the decision of the Opposition to use such valuable Parliamentary time, on the only day allotted here for the discussion of Welsh affairs, for this Motion of censure

tonight. The only conclusion to be drawn from that must be that other matters of importance such as employment, industry, agriculture, research, housing and local government, roads and bridges, water and welfare are all in such a happy state in Wales that it is not thought appropriate to debate them in priority to this B.B.C. appointment.
It is true, of course, that the Government's remarkable success in the conduct of Welsh affairs narrows the field for criticism considerably. What is revealing, however, is to find that the Opposition apparently consider this appointment more important, for example, than discussion of employment in Mid-Wales and North Wales; more important than the provision of water for industry; more important than the Severn Bridge, and more important even than a second television channel for Wales.
While all this is very assuring for hon. Members on this side, it can bring no comfort to the lady who so unwittingly and undeservedly has become the subject of this debate, but she can take heart from the fact that the Opposition have an uncanny knack of invariably attacking at the outset those appointments that in the end turn out to be the biggest successes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Such as?"] Frustrated by the fact that it was a Conservative Government which first created a Minister for Welsh Affairs, they have consistently, yet somewhat unwisely, attacked those privileged to take responsibility for these matters.
Then, when the Government created the office of Minister of State for Welsh Affairs, a position which it is commonly agreed has been most ably filled by my noble Friend, Lord Brecon, they could find nothing but criticism and abuse to help him on his way. Here are some of the things which hon. Members opposite said about that appointment:
Wales has turned sour on this appointment.
The whole shoddy business is a piece of window-dressing to deceive the Welsh people.
It is a confidence trick, but we see through it.
This is surely unacceptable to Wales. It fails to stir or warm a single heart. It has had a very unfavourable reception in Wales.
Perhaps the best one of them all was:
The new Minister, we understand, is to spend his time in Wales, presumably opening bazaars and closing factories.


I wonder if they have heard of Llanwern, Rover, Pressed Steel and B.M.C. How sickeningly familiar these words have sounded in recent weeks, yet these were the sort of impetuous and ill-conceived remarks made upon this appointment, so impetuous and ill-conceived that if they were repeated by their originators today, they would be greeted by a rumble of Welsh mirth that would echo from Cardiff to Conway. It seems, therefore, that the greater the outcry from the Opposition at an appointment in Wales the more likely the success of the appointee. I am certain that this will be no exception to that rule.
The Motion of censure before us is based on the contention that Mrs. Jones has insufficient knowledge of Wales and Welsh affairs. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the Welsh language."] I shall not repeat all that for we have heard it so often, but in my submission Mrs. Jones fulfils the requirements of the Charter in all these respects. As we know, she was born and bred in Wales, is the wife of the Dean of Brecon and has a grown-up family. She has travelled extensively and broadcast regularly to Australia. She is a co-opted member of the Brecon Education Committee. As there is another member of that Committee among hon. Members opposite, I hope that he will give us the benefit of his knowledge of her. She has had a long connection with the National Association of Mixed Clubs, has given distinguished service to the Swansea and Brecon Mothers' Union, and has served on the Council of Wales since last year.
All this adds up to wide experience which, coupled with Mrs. Jones's Welsh upbringing and Welsh background, will be invaluable in interpreting and expounding the characteristics and affairs of the Welsh people.

Mr. John Morris: I wonder if the hon. Member could enlighten the House as to whether Mrs. Jones has had any experience whatsoever of Welsh affairs outside the County of Brecon and the Diocese of Swansea and Brecon?

Mr. Box: I shall leave that to my right hon. Friend [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Members delay me so much I shall not be able to leave so much time for the winding-up speeches. Great play has been made of the fact that Mrs. Jones does not claim to speak Welsh.

With a Welsh-speaking husband and a Welsh-speaking father, I dare say that her knowledge and understanding of the Welsh language is as good, if not better, than that of some of her critics in and outside this House.
In any event, the terms of the Charter do not require that the Chairman should necessarily speak Welsh, and for good reason. The business of the National Broadcasting Council is conducted in English and the minutes are circulated in English, together with a Welsh translation. In any event, I submit that one of the most important duties of the Chairman is to be a good and strong advocate for Wales when sitting with the other members of the Board of Governors in London.

Mr. Ross: And the Mothers' Union.

Mr. Box: I am convinced that she will be an admirable champion for Wales in this respect. As the Chairman of a Council of seven other members it is reasonable to expect that she will receive the help and advice of her Welsh-speaking colleagues on the more detailed aspects of the Welsh language broadcasts and then convey the policy recommendations of her Council to the Board of National Governors in London.
While it is true that the majority of the Council have signified their disapproval of this appointment, to put the matter in its true perspective it must be appreciated that nearly half of them, one would assume, are definitely biassed. One is the President of the Welsh Nationalist Movement, a second is the professional organiser of the Socialist Party in Wales and a third is a Socialist alderman, chairman of one of the Socialist county councils. It wild be interesting to see bow many of these members of the Council decide to continue service under Mrs. Jones' chairmanship, as she has already commenced 'her duties.
It has been suggested in some quarters that Mrs. Jones is unsuitable for this position because she has lived a good part of her life outside Wales, and that the latter part of her education was completed outside Wales. All I can say on this is that if such considerations bad been of importance in the past, then it is fair to point out that we should not have enjoyed the chairmanship of the noble Lord who has been in charge for


the past nine years. He was born and bred in England, he went to school in England, he represented an English constituency in Parliament and he has spent a very considerable portion of his lifetime outside Wales. We now know that even during the period of his chairmanship he lived most of the time in London, which is outside the reception area of the Welsh Home Service. Even though the noble Lord speaks Welsh fluently, one can be forgiven for wondering how many Welsh Home Service programmes he listened to during the period of his chairmanship.

The Rev. Llywelyn Williams: I happen to be able to speak with some authority on this matter. May I submit that the hon. Member is wrong on both counts. In the first instance, Lord Macdonald was in Wales when he was appointed to this post and always lived in Wales during his tenure of the post. Secondly, very few people in Wales listened more often to Welsh programmes than did Lord Macdonald in the last few years.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Box: I must defer to the hon. Member's statement and take it that he must be accurate.
In view of this exceptional background, I wonder why the same outcry from hon. Members opposite was not made when he was appointed. I am sorry to mention these matters, but I must do so to show the obvious inconsistency and partisan approach to these matters by hon. Members opposite. They have lately become so concerned about qualifications or the lack of them that they must surely also be alarmed at the decision to appoint the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) as Chairman of the National Coal Board. Here is an appointment which has a direct bearing on the future livelihood of 94,000 Welsh miners and their families. Their complaint——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): Order. I cannot connect that with this Motion.

Mr. Box: I was merely trying to point out, Sir Gordon, the inconsistency of picking on one appointment and not criticising another appointment which has a great bearing on Wales.

Mrs. Eirene White: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that this post has in its very essence the spoken word, which can hardly be said of coal mining? Does not he realise that many of us who have criticised the appointment are not ourselves adequate Weigh speakers? If the job had been offered to me, I would have realised that it was not one that I could have fulfilled, because I have an inadequate knowledge of the language. Our complaint is that the lady has not realised that fact.

Mr. Box: If it is fair to criticise one appointment, which has such a great bearing on Wales and the Welsh people, in fairness one must criticise other appointments.
I hope that hon. Members opposite, having made their point and registered their protest, will now give this lady a fair opportunity to prove her worth. She deserves it, and the majority of the Welsh people, jealous of their reputation for fair play, now want her to have it.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. T. W. Jones: This is a debate in which all the people of Wales are taking a profound interest. For weeks this appointment has been the subject of discussion and criticism throughout the Principality. I do not know of any appointment in recent years which has created such widespread criticism.
The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) told us that he heard of the appointment when in the bathroom. That is the naked truth. I heard of the appointment in the street. I was accosted by a man who said, "What about Mrs. Rachel Jones?" I said, "Who is she? What has she done?" He said, "We are not concerned with what she has done. We are concerned with what she is going to do." When I got home I consulted "Who's Who for Wales" I went carefully through all the Joneses, and it has been a deuce of a job keeping up with the Joneses during the last six months. Her name was conspicuous by its absence.
Then I discovered that she is the wife of a church dignitary in Wales. She is the wife of a dean. I thought that I would consult the official weekly newspaper of the Church in Wales, Y Llan. I expected to see at least a few words of


commendation there. To my great surprise, I saw nothing but unadulterated criticism. Indeed, it was a most daring article. It was as daring as if the Catholic Herald had criticised the appointment of a Pope.
I have translated the passage I want to quote from Y Llan, because I do know a little English. I would not be here representing Merioneth if I could not speak Welsh as well. This is what the weekly paper of the Church, in which this lady's husband is a highlight, said:
The star of Brecon is very high in the firmament. Some time ago Mr. Lewis, as he then was, was rocketed from comparative security"——

Hon. Members: "Obscurity".

Mr. Jones: Being an ardent Nonconformist, I am not used to reading the Established Church pronouncements. The quotation continues:
…from comparative obscurity to become Minister of State for Wales with the title of Lord Brecon. Now we see the same process repeated. Mrs. Rachel Marianne Jones. the wife of the Dean of Brecon, has been appointed Chairman of the Welsh Committee of the B.B C. The first time that Wales heard of her was last autumn when she was elected a member of the Council of Wales. Nothing was heard of her afterwards until her appointment as Chairman of the B.B.C. Committee was announced. She was rocketed to prominence, like her friend Lord Brecon. The result, of course, was a storm in Parliament and we have not yet heard the end of it. The manner in which the appointment was announced is interesting. It was announced the day after a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee, so that the Welsh Grand Committee had no voice in the matter. It was announced, not in Parliament where the Prime Minister could have been questioned, but from 10, Downing Street, and it was announced the day before the Whitson Recess.
This is a subject for a storm in itself. But the chief subject for a storm will be the appointment itself. A woman has been appointed of whom Wales has but little knowledge. It may be that her qualifications for many an administrative post are brilliant. But for this particular post, that of Chairman of the Welsh Committee of the B.B.C., the appointment can be regarded as neither wise nor responsible In the first place, Mrs. Jones knows but little Welsh, even if any. Who in the world can discuss the Welsh policy of the B.B.C. without knowledge of Welsh? It had been suspected that an irresponsible appointment would be made and apart from what has appeared from time to time in the Press, many Questions were asked in Parliament. So that the Government were not short of being reminded of the needs of Wales. Yet White hall showed that they knew better. If this is an example of the way in which the British Government acts in other countries, it is no

wonder that we have turmoils. We cannot forget, also, that Mrs. Jones is the wife of a Dean This will resurrect old prejudices in relation to the Tory non-Welsh Church in Wales.
I have quoted from the official organ of the Church in Wales. I cannot think of a more devastating criticism.
The Prime Minister is the guilty man—by the way, where is the right hon. Gentleman? Is he in the bathroom, too? He may like to console himself by believing that this rumpus has been created by a few hotheads in Wales. Let me remind the Prime Minister that here in the City of London there are 500,000 Welsh people and that they produce their own magazine. It is called the London Welshman. I have a copy here. The colour should please hon. Members opposite; it is true blue. But when I open it, they will find themselves "in the red".
This is what The London Welshman says—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh, yes, there are a quarter of a million of them and they have as much right to be heard as any hon. Member opposite. They were here before any of the ancestors of those hon. Members came here—it was only the charitable spirit of the Welsh that allowed them to be where they are. This is what the London Welshman said:
Only someone of singularly obtuse judgment could have supposed that the appointment of Mrs. Rachel Jones as Chairman of the Broadcasting Council for Wales would go through without bitter protest and a damaging dispute. The Government and Lord Brecon may have genuinely believed that it would be a good thing to bring a fresh voice into Welsh public life and that is certainly a worthy intention. They may also have reckoned that Mrs. Jones may well have remedied her limited grasp of the Welsh language to a sufficient degree to fulfil her duties. Surely if there was one person who should not have been appointed unless she were manifestly acceptable to all, it was Mrs. Rachel Jones. To have made her a member of the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire may not have been unreasonable and, in fact, it went unchallenged. But this lady's elevation cannot fail to evoke suspicions of such thorough paced patronage as to be an anathema to public conscience long suffering though that is in the Principality.
There is now a new "Establishment" in Wales. Must we in future be members of the Tory Party and of the Church in Wales before we can be appointed to any position of trust?

Mr. John Morris: And live in Brecon-shire.

Mr. Jones: Oh, yes, that is an important point.
Are we coming to that? As a matter of fact a Tory M.P. in Wales is a novelty. When we want to open a bazaar we bring him there because curiosity will draw the crowd together. We have a guaranteed audience because they want to see the animal. I wish to warn the Minister that we shall look very closely into this new establishment.
Whatever may be the merits or demerits of the appointee, public opinion in Wales is almost universally against the appointment. The question is: are the Government so indifferent, so cynically indifferent, as to treat this opinion with contempt. During this debate we have heard arguments for and against the new Chairman and perhaps I may be allowed to recapitulate, leaving apart what we heard from the hon. Member for Barry. One should study HANSARD to understand that speech.
What are the terms of the Charter? I want the House to know and I want my Scots friends around me to hear.

Mr. Ross: We are listening.

Mr. Jones: The functions of the Councils are
…the functions of controlling the policy and content of programmes in the Scottish and Welsh home services, respectively, and exercising such control with full regard to the distinctive cultural interests and tastes of the people concerned.
Is this lady a person who has knowledge of the cultural interests and tastes of the people of Wales? Is she in close touch with Welsh opinion? I know that the Welsh people do not know her and it is rather strange that she should know and understand the Welsh people whereas they are in absolute ignorance of her identity.
This is a vital post and people have a right to ask these questions. All this business about chivalry and gallantry because she is a female is pure nonsense; otherwise, let us have a woman for Prime Minister and then the Leader of the Opposition would be out of a job because we should not be able to question anything the Prime Minister did, if the Prime Minister were a lady. So let us forget all that. As a matter of

fact, we hold nothing against this lady, nothing at all. Indeed, I am told that she is a very charming woman.
But the Charter does not ask for charm. It asks explicitly for a knowledge of the culture, interests and tastes of the people of Wales. Has she ever been connected with cultural movements? [An HON. MEMBER: "The Tory Party?"] Someone mentions the Tory Party. I have never seen culture of any kind there. Has she, for instance, been connected with the Eisteddfodau, one of the greatest cultural movements in Wales and, indeed, in the whole of Britain? I very much doubt it.
Does she know the characteristics of the steel workers of Shotton, of the agricultural workers of Anglesey, of the quarry workers of Merioneth and Caernarvon, of the coal workers of the Rhondda Valley? That is what the Charter demands—not charm, nor magic. Knowledge of this kind is not garnered in a week or a month or a year, but by a lifetime of experience among the people. One has to live with the people to know and understand them.
I have mentioned the terms of the Charter. Let me ask this question: what is the overriding qualification which the Chairman of the Broadcasting Council for Wales ought to have if she is to succeed? The answer is obvious—the confidence of the people. She has not got it—not even the confidence of the majority of the Council of which she is a member. Those of us who criticise the appointment of Mrs. Marianne Jones have been called by Lady Brecon "yapping, untrained corgis." At least, some of us are thoroughbred; we can yap like corgis and not like French poodles.
I should like to remind the House that according to the Charter, five of the eight members must be appointed after consultation. There has been no consultation here. "Ah", says the Prime Minister, "you do not want consultation here. She is the Chairman. She is in an exalted position." May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that before he was put in his exalted position there was great consultation. The list was brought down to two, and they did not know, as a result of the consultation, whether the better choice was made.


That was their look out. But there was great consultation because of the exalted position in which the right hon. Gentleman was to be placed. The more exalted the position, the more the need for consultation.
I should like to remind the House that the Government cannot ignore Welsh feeling in this matter. I will now say something which might cheer the Minister. I believe—and I shall give my reason afterwards—that this woman will succeed in her office, and for this simple reason. The Prime Minister, in his awn interests, will be prepared to bend over backwards to make her a success, but when he reminds us of that we shall say "I told you so." Of course, he will make her a success, but she will have what no other chairman probably will have. There is no doubt about that. She must be a very dull woman indeed if she has not, but all this will have been the result of the criticism and the protests, and even of this debate.
It has been suggested that Mrs. Jones should resign. I do not know whether she will resign. I doubt whether she should resign, but there is no doubt in my mind about one person who should resign, and that is the Prime Minister.

9.41 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): Some people warned me that this was likely to become a bitter and sour debate, but it has turned out to be a more hilarious debate than I have ever heard on any Welsh day in the past. Whether the appointment is successful or not—I will tell the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones)—will depend on Mrs. Jones's own qualities. She is, in fact, a highly gifted woman, and I feel sure that the whole House will accept that. I believe that the people in Wales believe it now. She is a highly gifted woman of Welsh blood. There is no question about her not being a thoroughbred, whose dignified silence under bitter attacks by a section of her own country men and women has won the admiration of all Wales.
The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) alleged that her
experience of Welsh life and culture is extrernely limited. I can only say that

that proves that he knows very little about her. Those who have had the pleasure and privilege of meeting her would unquestionably say precisely the opposite. Whether this appointment, on which I certainly take responsibility for having advised my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, is successful or not will be determined by experience—by the experience of the people of Wales. Mrs. Jones is appointed for a period of two years. If the appointment does not turn out a success, she will not be reappointed, but if the people of Wales believe that her appointment has helped towards further progress with the Welsh Home Service, which is not free from its critics at present, then I believe it will be the ultimate test that the Government were right in recommending this appointment. It will be submitted, in the last resort, to the test of Welsh public opinion—[HON. MEMBERS: "How?"]—and not to debate in this House or to votes in this House.
I think everyone must have been impressed by the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box) when he reminded the House that we have been through this before. These were exactly the same kind of charges as were levelled against my noble Friend Lord Brecon. I was told, and I was in the House at the time of the previous Welsh debate, that this was an arbitrary and irresponsible appointment, and that it was the missing of a great opportunity. As far as hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies are concerned, I doubt whether anyone would come out in his constituency and attack Lord Brecon. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I certainly know that there have been attacks upon him in the Welsh language newspapers, because of his supposed association with this appointment, and I know that these attacks have caused disgust among countless people who read the Welsh language newspapers and who know from their personal experience the service which my noble Friend has done for the people of Wales.
I come now to the terms and conditions of the appointment, setting personalities aside. The task before a Government who have to fill the post of National Governor is to find someone who will be able to give something like


half of his time to the work, part of it in Cardiff and part of it in London. It is relatively easy to find people who are prepared to take on a part-time job if it means attendance for one or two half days a month. It is relatively easy, if the job is attractive enough, to find someone who will accept appointment to a full-time post and give up the full-time post he has held hitherto. But it is a very different matter, because the field is so much smaller, to find someone who has available or who can make available half of his time.
This narrows the range of candidates, and many people whose names have been mentioned and who might have made admirable National Governors had they been free were tied up in full-time posts from which it would not have been conceivable that they would retire in order to take on a half-time appointment.

Mr. Leo Abse: Were they asked?

Mr. Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman enlighten us about how many people were approached?

Mr. Brooke: I did not say that they were approached. I said that they were considered. All of us who have any acquaintance with Wales can think of people who, had they had half of their time uncommitted, would have filled this post admirably. It is an extremely difficult task. I invite hon. Members to make up a list in their own minds and go over it. If one is seeking somebody who is required to give half of his time, it is difficult to find anyone suitable outside the ranks of those who have retired. Rightly or wrongly, the Government thought that it would be advisable in this instance to appoint somebody younger. The vacancy occurred because the noble Lord,. Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor was 72—I think he was 64 when he was appointed—and he was retiring on grounds of age and age alone. It seemed to the Government, rightly or wrongly, that it would be wise in this case to find someone rather younger.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The Prime Minister, in his reply to Sir Henry Morris-Jones, said that Mrs. Jones was appointed after careful consideration of the candidates available. Can the Minister tell us who were the candidates available?

Mr. Brooke: A long list of people was considered, a great many of whom could not have been appointed because of the reason I have mentioned. [Hon. Members: "They were never asked."] After very careful consideration, it was decided that Mrs. Rachel Jones would do better in the job than anyone else who was likely to be available.
I wish now to address myself to the words of the Motion, because it alleges that Mrs. Jones does not fulfil the requirements of the Charter. The Charter requires that the National Governor shall be selected
in virtue of his knowledge of the culture, characteristics and affairs of Our People in Wales and his close touch with Welsh opinion.
The hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) said that Mrs. Jones did not pass this test, because her knowledge of the Welsh language and Welsh culture that depended on the Welsh language could be no more than second hand. I ask the hon. Lady to realise that by those words she rules out of consideration for the post in the future the great majority of past and present Members representing Welsh constituencies. In looking round among our friends on both sides of the House who represent Welsh constituencies and casting one's mind back over Welsh Members who are no longer with us, I certainly would not dare to say that every one of those who was not Welsh-speaking was unfitted to be a National Governor for Wales. The hon. Lady said that anyone who had not a knowledge of the Welsh language had only a second-hand knowledge of the
culture, characteristics and affairs of Our People in Wales.
That is what I cannot accept. If one applies the test which I think the hon. Lady would wish to apply—certainly the test by which those who have criticised this appointment have condemned it—one rules out of consideration between two-thirds and three-quarters of all the people in Wales. When one is making an appointment to a position of such importance as this, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly said it was, I do not believe that it can be right that one should start by ruling out of consideration between two-thirds and three-quarters of all people who have full right to call themselves Welsh.
The task of the National Governor is, first and foremost, to stand up for Wales and the interests of Wales in the counsels of the B.B.C. Some critics have spoken as if the National Governor should be listening all his life to the Welsh Home Service. That is not so. Even the appointment that he carries as Chairman of the National Broadcasting Council for Wales is less important to Wales than what he can achieve in arguing for Wales as a Governor of the B.B.C. within the British Broadcasting Corporation.
Above all, it was necessary to find someone who would be an effective advocate. All of us can think of people who are splendid Welshmen, but it is not necessarily the case that every one of them would have been well chosen to influence the other Governors of the B.B.C. in paying proper regard to Welsh interests. This I believe to be fundamental.
There are great questions ahead concerning the amount of Welsh language broadcasting in the Home Service. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was half of all the programmes emanating from Wales, but it is only a very small proportion of the programmes going out on the Welsh Home Service. Many people think that there should be a larger proportion. Others think that there should not be any Welsh language broadcasting at all. There are ahead very important questions about Welsh television. In all this, it is essential to have someone who will carry conviction to the other Governors of the B.B.C. with whom she will have to co-operate.
A section of opinion in Wales has turned against Mrs. Jones on a basis of ignorance without pausing to find out whether it was attacking someone who would be a valuable friend to the Welsh culture which it rightly wants to see defended. It is no use talking, as the right hon. Gentleman did, about unity between the English-speaking and Welsh-speaking peoples in Wales and then instantly leaping to the false conclusion that anyone who does not speak Welsh is not a friend of the Welsh language. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who said that?"] That is exactly the charge brought against Mrs. Jones by most of the critics in Wales.
I have seen all the resolutions of protest and the letters in the newspapers. I have seen the letters sent to my right

hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself. I have also seen the letters of support. I have noticed that, despite what the right hon. Gentleman said, quite as many letters of support for Mrs. Jones' appointment have appeared in, for instance, the Western Mail and the South Wales News as letters of protest. That is true all the way through. We who have been concerned with this appointment have been getting a stream of letters from people in Wales saying that they thoroughly agree with the appointment and that they think that it is a far-sighted and imaginative appointment and hope that we will not listen to or be confused by the small section of opinion in Wales which holds that only Welsh-speaking people can be accepted as having a true knowledge of Welsh culture.
It will be noted as significant by the House that practically all Mrs. Jones's critics are people who do not know her personally. It is equally significant that, almost without exception, the people who know her are strongly in favour of her appointment. There is, of course, one hon. Member here who must know her well, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins). It seems strange to me that he did not seek the opportunity of catching your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Watkins: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman has not read that my name is attached to the Motion.

Mr. Brooke: It would have been valuable, nevertheless, if one of Mrs. Jones's critics in this debate had been somebody who had personal knowledge of her. As far as I am aware, all the others who spoke knew her not at all. I speak with confidence in saying that, almost without exception, those who do know her are convinced that she will fulfil this task admirably. Frankly, I should be ashamed of attacking anybody as she has been attacked if I had never met the person concerned. The testimony of those who know a person is far more weighty than the testimony of those who do not.
The right hon. Member for Llanelly said that he was speaking for the overwhelming majority of the Welsh nation. That is not true. The hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen said that this appointment was totally unacceptable to


Welsh opinion. That is flatly contradicted by the large measure of support that has been expressed in all parts of Wales for this appointment. It is not considered that an appointment of this important character should necessarily be confined to that portion of the people who speak Welsh but that it should be thrown open and that the best person available should be selected for the job.
I come back to what I said at the beginning. The experience of the future broadcasting service in Wales will prove

that this appointment is justified. Never from this Box have I spoken with greater conviction—[Interruption.]—never—because I deeply believe that Wales will immensely gain by the fact that the Government have had the courage to appoint Mrs. Rachel Jones. I suggest that now the House should follow the example of the Socialist-controlled Rhondda Borough Council and reject the Motion of censure overwhelmingly.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 240.

Division No. 141.]
AYES
[9.58 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Holman, Percy
Proctor, W. T.


Ainsley, William
Houghton, Douglas
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Howell, Charles A.
Rankin, John


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Redhead, E. C.


Awbery, Stan
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Reid, William


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rhodes, H.


Beaney, Alan
Hunter, A. E.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Blackburn, F.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Ross, William


Blyton, William
Janner, Barnett
Short, Edward


Boyden, James
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Braddock, Mrs, E. M.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Skeffington, Arthur


Brockway, A. Fenner
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Broughton, Dr. A, D. D.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Small, William


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Snow, Julian


Callaghan, James
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Sorensen, R. W.


Cliffe, Michael
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kenyon, Clifford
Spriggs, Leslie


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Steele, Thomas


Crossman, R. H. S.
King, Dr. Horace
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lawson, George
Storehouse, John


Darling, George
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stones, William


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Swingler, Stephen


Deer, George
McCann, John
Sylvester, George


de Freltas, Geoffrey
MacColl, James
Symonds, J. B.


Delargy, Hugh
McInnes, James
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dempsey, James
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Diamond, John
McLeavy, Frank
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Donnelly, Desmond
Mahon, Simon
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield. E.)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Manuel, A. C.
Thornton, Ernest


Edelman, Maurice
Mapp, Charles
Thorpe, Jeremy


Edward, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)




Edward, Robert (Bilston)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Timmons, John


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Marsh, Richard
Wade, Donald


Evans, Albert
Mason, Roy
Wainwright, Edwin


Fernyhough, E.
Mendelson, J. J.
Warbey, William


Finch, Harold
Millan, Bruce
Watkins, Tudor


Foot, Dingle
Mitchison, G. R.
Weitzman, David


Forman, J. C.
Monslow, Walter
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moody, A. S.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Morris, John
White, Mrs. Eirene


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Mort, D. L.
Whitlock, William


Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moyle, Arthur
Wilkins, W. A.


Gourlay. Harry
Neal, Harold
Willey, Frederick


Grey, Charles
Oswald, Thomas
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Owen, Will
Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon,. Harold (Huyton)


Hannan, William
Paton, John
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pavitt, Laurence
Woodbum, Rt. Hon. A.


Hayman, F. H.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Woof, Robert


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(Rwly Regis)
Peart, Frederick



Herbison, Miss Margaret
Popplewell, Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Prentice, R. E.
Mr. Bowden and Mr. Probert.


Hilton, A. V.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Mills, Stratton


Aitken, W. T.
Gardner, Edward
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Nabarro, Gerald


Allason, James
Gibson-Watt, David
Neave, Airey


Alport, Rt. Hon. C. J. M.
Glover, Sir Douglas
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Noble, Michael


Arbuthnot, John
Godber, J. B.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Gough, Frederick
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Balniel, Lord
Gower, Raymond
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)


Barlow, Sir John
Grant, Rt. Hn. William (Woodside)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Barter, John
Green, Alan
Page, Graham


Batsford, Brian
Gresham Cooke, R.
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Partridge, E.


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Peel, John


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Percival, Ian


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Hay, John
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Berkeley, Humphry
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pilkington, Capt. Richard


Biggs-Davison, John
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Pitt, Miss Edith


Bingham, R. M.
Hiley, Joseph
Pott, Percivall


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Powell, J. Enoch


Bishop, F. P.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)


Black, Sir Cyril
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Prior-Palmer, Brig Sir Otho


Bossom, Clive
Hocking, Philip N.
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bourne-Arton, A.
Holland, Philip
Ramsden, James


Box, Donald
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Hopkins, Alan
Rees, Hugh


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hornby, R. P.
Renton, David


Braine, Bernard
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Rippon, Geoffrey


Brewis, John
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Brooman-White, R.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Roots, William


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Iremonger, T. L.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Bryan, Paul
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Russell, Ronald


Bullard, Denys
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Jennings, J. C.
Sharples, Richard


Burden, F. A.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Shaw, M.


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Shepherd, William


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Joseph, Sir Keith
Smithers, Peter


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Channon, H. P. G.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Chataway, Christopher
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Speir, Rupert


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Kershaw, Anthony
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Lambton, Viscount
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Cole, Norman
Langford-Holt, J.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Collard, Richard
Leather, E. H. C.
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Cooke, Robert
Leavey, J. A.
Tapsell, Peter


Cooper, A. E.
Leburn, Gilmour
Teeling, William


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Temple, John M.


Corfield, F. V.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Costain, A. P.
Lindsay, Martin
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Coulson, J. M.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Litchfield, Capt. John
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Critchley, Julian
Longbottom, Charles
Turner, Colin


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Longden, Gilbert
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Cunningham, Knox
Loveys, Walter H.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Curran, Charles
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Currie, G. B. H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Vickers, Miss Joan


Dalkeith, Earl of
McAdden, Stephen
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Dance, James
MacArthur, Ian
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
McLaren, Martin
Wall, Patriok


Deedes, W. F.
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Ward, Rt. Hon. George (Worcester)


de Ferranti, Basil
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Webster, David


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Doughty, Charles
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Whitelaw, William


du Cann, Edward
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Duncan, Sir James
McMaster, Stanley R.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Duthie, Sir William
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Elliott, R. W.
Maitland, Cdr. Sir John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Wise, A. R.


Errington, Sir Eric
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Marlowe, Anthony
Woodhouse, C. M.


Farr, John
Marshall, Douglas
Woodnutt, Mark


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marten, Neil
Worsley, Marcus


Foster, John
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)



Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Mawby, Ray
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Freeth, Denzil
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Mr. Edward Wakefield and




Colonel J. H. Harrison.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Cyprus Bill, on the Nigeria Independence Bill and on the Motion relating to the Films Bill

[Lords], exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Orders of the Day — CYPRUS BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(ESTABLISHMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS AS AN IN DEPENDENT SOVEREIGN COUNTRY.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: It would be remiss of us to part with the Clause without a little more explanation from the Government about the Republic of Cyprus. Many of us were surprised that the day should come when the Government would introduce such a Bill, setting up a Republic of Cyprus, in view of their past speeches on the subject. But the day has arrived, and we believe that hon. Members opposite should have the opportunity of declaring themselves before we part with the Clause.
The Clause designates the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus and says that on the designated day
there shall be established in the Island of Cyprus an independent sovereign Republic of Cyprus and Her Majesty shall have no sovereignty or jurisdiction over the Republic of Cyprus.
In view of the brave speeches made by hon. Members opposite for years past, we thought that the Committee would like to hear the views of some of those present concerning the proposal of the Government. Hon Members on this side of the Committee support the Government. I do not know whether their own back benchers support them. On the basis of past debates we would certainly guess that they do not. However, it may be that the back benchers have had a conversion similar to that of Saul on the road to Damascus and that they have now seen the light and are ready to agree in 1960 what they denied in 1954. Better late than never.
It is not a bad thing that hon. Members opposite should be faced with the consequences of their own speeches. [Interruption.] It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to mutter interjections.

Mr. Dudley Williams: Clause Four.

Mr. Callaghan: We changed our minds over Clause Four. Is that the point?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. Is a discussion of Clause Four in order in a debate on the Cyprus Bill?

The Deputy-Chairman: As the Committee well knows, we are debating Clause 1.

Mr. Callaghan: All I say about changing minds is that there has never been such a dramatic change of mind by any Government or any party—and certainly not on such a serious issue—as there has been over the setting up of the Republic of Cyprus. Nor did it cost millions of pounds, or 600 lives. It ill lies in the mouths of hon. Members opposite to talk about changing minds, because if they had not reached the conclusion they did six years ago this country would be far better off, and so would the island of Cyprus. The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) had better be quiet, instead of reproaching us with changing our minds. Here is a substantial change of mind. Hon. Members opposite will hear quite a lot of this in Committee; they had better make up their minds to that.
I turn to some of the specific provisions, and ask the Government what they have to say about the rigid Constitution that has been laid down. I know that they can say, "It is not our Constitution. It was drawn up between the Greeks and the Turks, and we had very little part to play in it." That is true. When Her Majesty's Government got out of the ring the Greeks and Turks got together and agreed. But there are substantial rigidities, and it is the Government who are commending the Clause to us. I hope that hon. Members opposite will study the Bill. They will have some time in which to do so.
This is a straitjacket; it is not a constitution. Some of the deficiencies


were pointed out in the debate last week. First, there is the size of the armed forces.

Sir Godfrey Nicholson: Is this in Clause 1?

Mr. Callaghan: This is all in Clause 1. It says that
the constitution designated in the Order
is the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus. That is exactly what I am referring to, and the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) should read the Bill, and he should read Appendix D in the White Paper, which contains the draft Constitution. It is from that that I am now quoting.
10.15 p.m.
The size of the Armed Forces is actually laid down in the Constitution. It says that Cyprus shall have Armed Forces numerically 2,000. I suppose that, in fact, they will be breaking the Constitution if, at the end of the year, they have 1,999 or 2,001. It is laid down as basic to the Constitution that the size of the Armed Forces shall be 2,000. What is more, we are told how many Turks and Greeks there are to be in that 2,000. That is a basic law. As I understand it, it cannot be altered, repealed, added to or modified in any way. I should have thought that an absurdity, and it is the job of the House of Commons, and it is certainly the job of the Opposition, to draw attention to some of the difficulties in which the Republic of Cyprus will find itself over the next few years as the result of this Constitution to which we are now being asked to assent.
Then there is the transfer of land. If land is transferred or redistributed it must go to a member of the same community as that to which the man who originally owned it belonged. If owned by a Turk, it can be transferred only to a Turk; if owned by a Greek, it can be transferred only to a Greek. This, again, implies a rigidity that stereotypes the island in a way that must be wholly undesirable.
It may be argued that, for a short period of time, this is inevitable; that because of the relationships, and the hostility that may exist between the two communities, it is a way of avoiding

trouble—but we are being asked that this shall be so for ever. I cannot believe that this is likely to last for ever, and I doubt whether hon. Members opposite believe it.
Article 20 deals with education. As I understand it, education is always to be on a religious basis. In other words, the Greek-Cypriot children shall be brought up in their own religion, and the Turkish-Cypriot children shall be brought up in theirs. I am all for the place of religion in education, but do the Government really think it desirable that we should write into the Constitution, as a basic law, that for ever and a day religious education in those forms shall be compulsory, so that the two communities will have less chance of growing together than they would if this provision were left looser?
There is the question of communal interest——

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Why not put down Amendments?

Mr. Callaghan: I shall come to that. The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) is perfectly entitled later to make a speech explaining his own attitude. We have not heard from him yet, but I very much hope that we shall hear from him before the end of the evening, and I shall tell him why we are not putting down Amendments.
We are told in Article 25 that the communal interest shall always triumph over the private interest wherever the two may conflict. Is this really a provision that we think highly desirable?
The noble Lord has asked, perfectly fairly, why we have not put down Amendments, and I shall answer him. This Agreement has been reached after a great deal of travail——

Mr. James Dempsey: And tragedy.

Mr. Callaghan: —and, certainly, after tragedy—as a result of a great deal of reaction on the part of persons like the noble Lord who have themselves fomented the trouble that exists between these two communities. [Interruption.] From the Prime Minister downwards, every hon. Member in the Conservative Party is responsible for fomenting


trouble between Greeks and Turks—let there be no doubt about that. Hon. Members opposite know it, and they know how the then Prime Minister, as I quoted in the debate last week—Sir Anthony Eden—himself invited the Turkish Government to make their position more clear; stoked up the fires. Hon. Members opposite cannot dodge their responsibilities for these issues, and a very heavy responsibility rests on them.
I come back to the question which the noble Lord put to me. Why did we not put down Amendments? I say to him that I think it would be highly undesirable for any of us in the House of Commons to attempt to alter this Constitution. which has been reached after so much difficulty. It has been reached by agreement between the Turkish-Cypriots and the Greek-Cypriots. The British Government did not play a part in it. The agreement was reached in their absence.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The hon. Member criticised it.

Mr. Callaghan: The noble Lord might try to address himself to the argument. This is an island over which we have had sovereignty and we are being asked to transfer sovereignty to the Republic of Cyprus. What I say to the Committee and to the country is that, as a result of Government policy over the last six years, the consequences we are now being asked to address ourselves to and from which we cannot escape are of such a character that they are bound to lead to friction over the next few years. I regret this. I do not think it was necessary or that it should have happened, but we certainly would not be doing our duty as a Committee if we welt to part with this Clause without pointing out that we are launching this new Republic into a very troubled world with a strait jacket tied about its development.
I wish to ask the Government what they think about this. When some of these conditions become irksome, as they are bound to—I have mentioned only a few and there are many more, as a superficial reading of the Constitution will show—I do not know how this young Republic will get out of its difficulties. A lot of these conditions are written into the Constitution and are like the Laws of the Medes and Persians.

Sir G. Nicholson: I do not rise to interrupt the hon. Member and I apologise to him, but I am asking for information. Is it right that we should debate the terms of the White Paper, which has not yet been laid?

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Samuel Storey): I think it is in order, because I understand that the Constitution is in the White Paper and we are in order in discussing it.

Sir G. Nicholson: I agree, Sir Samuel, that it is in the White Paper, but it refers to an Order in Council which has not been made and, theoretically I suppose, the Order in Council could be different from what has been said in the White Paper. That, with respect and humility, I suggest cannot be in order.

The Temporary Chairman: The Order cannot be laid until later, and I think that it would be restricting the rights of this Committee in debate if we limited the discussion now.

Mr. Callaghan: As I understood it. the Order cannot he laid until the Bill is passed. Part of the provisions of the Bill are that this draft Constitution shall form the Order. So what we are debating is clearly indicated in Clause 1 and it is that this draft Constitution shall be the substance of the Order. Probably it will be the beginning and end of the Order which will be laid before us in due course. Before giving Clause 1 our assent, this is the moment to point out some of the difficulties inherent in the Constitution under which the Republic of Cyprus is launching out in its independent rôle.
I have explained that I think that it would be improper to attempt to amend it. I do not seek to do that. We would have put down Amendments if we thought that was the right course, but I hope that when this Republic of Cyprus runs into rough weather, as I feel it is bound to do over the next few years, the Government and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will try to find some way of enabling the Republic to escape from the consequences of the actions of the last six years.
That is what we are debating and that is the position we are now brought up against. I think that we are entitled


to hear from the Government tonight what they believe will be the way for these restrictions to be eased, if they can be eased, in due course when they become particularly irksome either upon one community or both, because I believe that it can be demonstrated without any doubt that those restrictions will prove almost impossible to carry out over the next few years. We would not be doing the right thing if we were to allow this Clause to go by without pointing out the consequences of the transfer of sovereignty of this country to the new Republic of Cyprus. It is with this in mind that I have opened this debate with a view to giving the Colonial Secretary an opportunity to state the Government's views upon it.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, has made the same allegations as he made on Second Reading, and they are as invalid now as they were a few days ago. He knows quite well that the major burden of responsibility for any delay in reaching a settlement in Cyprus is upon the shoulders of the Opposition, because they consistently went through the motions of promising the Greeks something like Enosis if they won the 1959 or 1960 General Election. The second fault into which he fell is that throughout Second Reading and his speech this evening there was a complete absence of any understanding of the deep differences between the Greek Orthodox Church and the Moslem communities.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Member is repeating his original allegation. He sat through most of the debates, although from his speech last week I do not know how much profit he derived from them. He knows that we made it clear all the time from 1954 onwards that our view about this situation was that the people of Cyprus should have the right to choose their own future. That was the case we made all the time. It included Enosis and, when Mr. Walter Elliot proposed it, it also included partition. We did not believe in either of those alternatives, and we have escaped them, but we came down neither on one side nor the other any more than we have done in Nyasaland.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: That may be so, but that interpretation was not the one which the Greeks gave to it. It is easy to say that the Cyprus people were entitled to their own method of self-determination, but when they were in the happy position of irresponsibility the Opposition never said which section of the Cyprus community was entitled to self-determination. To the Greeks self-determination meant Enosis, whereas to the Turkish community it meant partition. As the hon. Member himself has admitted, those two alternatives were irreconcilable. That is why throughout all the debates in the last four or five years we on this side of the Committee have said that the Opposition's attitude was wholly impracticable and irresponsible, in marked contrast to their attitude before the 1951 election, when they were responsible for events in Cyprus and when they took precisely the same view as Her Majesty's present Government have taken in recent years. The hon. Member must face the facts of history. Why does he think that the Government have drawn the Constitution carefully——

Mr. Callaghan: The Government have not drawn it. It is not the Government's constitution.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: —in order that the rights of the majority and the minority shall be closely defined?

Mr. Callaghan: rose——

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I hope that the hon. Member will allow me to develop my argument. There would not have been the slightest degree of hope of agreement between the Greek and Turkish Governments, and still less between Archibishop Makarios and Dr. Kutchuk, if the position of the Greek majority and the Turkish minority had not been fully safeguarded.
The hon. Member said that we hope that these two communities will settle down and live happily side by side. I agree that we hope that they will do so, but let him not forget that as recently as 1922 there was war between Greece and Turkey in Asia Minor and that many Greeks and Turks still living in Cyprus and the Middle East, and particularly in the Levant, can still remember the disaster of the Smyrna massacres.


He would be unwise to take so short a view of history. When he speaks of the religious safeguards in respect of education, let him remember the deep religious differences which have existed for hundreds of years between the Christian Orthodox Church and the Moslem communities. If he thinks that any community, whatever its religion may be, is prepared to accept an educational settlement which completely ignores any religious element in it, he should look back at the 1944 Act in this country. As a better example, he should consider the educational set-up in India before the transfer of power, where the rights of the Moslems and the Hindus were most carefully safeguarded.
10.30 p.m.
I beg the hon. Gentleman not to try with a duster to wipe off from the blackboard the history of the national and religious diversities between the two communities. The Constitution which Her Majesty's Government have produced, with the agreement, and only with the agreement, of the Greek and Turkish communities and the Greek and Turkish Governments, does its best to safeguard the susceptibilities both of the majority and of the minority in the Island.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman has his facts wrong today, just as he had them wrong the other day. He has to read no further than page 3 of the White Paper on Cyprus. It is clear that Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom were not represented on the Joint Commission, which was established with the duty of completing the draft Constitution. Paragraph 2 says:
The text of the Constitution has, however, been made available to Her Majesty's Government who have informed the other parties that they have no comments on it.
It is not Her Majesty's Government's Constitution. It was not prepared by them with the assent of the Greeks and the Turks. It was prepared by the Greeks and the Turks in the absence of Her Majesty's Government.
The hon. Gentleman should try to understand my argument. What I am saying is that we are parting with sovereignty in the island in circumstances which seem to me, despite the agree-

ment which has been reached between the Greeks and the Turks in the absence of Her Majesty's Government, to make the future of the island rather more dubious than it need have been.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: Unless the Turkish and Greek Governments and the Turkish and Greek communities had agreed upon what sort of Constitution they wanted, we should not have debated Second Reading last week and should not be debating the Committee stage now.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I rise to make only one brief comment. The greatest tragedy of the last six years has been the intensification of the antagonism between the Greek and the Turkish communities. Eight years ago in Cyprus there was very little of that antagonism. One could go to villages and observe, in the heat of the day under the trees, Greek and Turkish families together. Their children were playing together. There was very little of the antagonism which has now grown up.
The greatest indictment of the policy of the Government during the last six years has been that that policy has led to the antagonisms and hatreds which have had such an unfortunate effect.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I should not have intervened if it had not been for the fact that I remember going to Cyprus first at a time when everything was extremely friendly for the British troops. That was during the Second World War. I do not think that any of us at that time could possibly have visualised a situation emerging which would lead to the continuing struggle against Eoka, which caused everyone in this country so much grief.
It is singularly ill-becoming of the hon. Members for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) not to come out into the open and say whom they particularly condemn.

Mr. Brockway: The Government.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East made it all-embracing. He made it the whole of the Conservative Party. It is an old rule in this Committee, of which we are all very well aware, that personal imputations of motives, and things like that, are out of


order. What do the Opposition do? Because they know they cannot single out individuals and accuse them of something which, if it were said outside this Committee would render the person who said it liable to a charge of slander, they make an all-embracing charge which cannot be ruled out of order and which is in fact a hideous slander against honourable people. I for one am not proposing to let it go without an answer.
Not only have some of us been to Cyprus but, with members of our families, we have been closely related with the operations against Eoka and we find it totally foul to have to sit and listen to the sort of accusations which the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East made tonight. What does he suppose we wanted to see in Cyprus? Continuing bloodshed?

Mr. Callaghan: British sovereignty. That is what the hon. and gallant Member said and that is what the party opposite has now given up.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Is the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East saying that he deliberately wanted to end British sovereignty? That is the implication of his remarks. Is he saying that if an amicable agreement could have been reached with the Greeks in Cyprus nevertheless he would still have liked to have seen British sovereignty ended?

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Member asks me a question and I will give him the answer. I am supporting the Bill. I do not know whether he is or not.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I am endeavouring to answer the foul accusations which the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East has thrown across the Committee.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Member is making a hash of it, anyway.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I will come to the question of whether I approve of the Bill or not in a moment. I am trying to answer the charges and the hon. Gentleman does not like that fact that I am answering them. I would say that the implication of his remarks is that he wanted British sovereignty to end a long time ago. I should have thought that the hon. Member might have realised that, from the economic point

of view, Cyprus on its own is not viable. He might have realised that British sovereignty in Cyprus might have been to the benefit of the island in the long run, and that Cypriots might do well to think twice before casting it off. However, the Cypriots have now come to an agreement whereby we shall give them sovereignty except for the base areas.
I wonder what was the purpose of the remarks of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East. Did he really believe that they would make it any easier for everyone to settle down and get on with the business of building up the economy in Cyprus? I should have thought that the only effect of his remarks would be to cast doubt on the wisdom of the agreement. Where they sensible and statesmanlike utterances for the hon. Gentleman to make? I consider them mischevious and designed to make certain that the Republic runs into the greatest possible difficulties as soon as possible. After all he said he thought at the time, I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would want peace in the island as quickly as possible, and for the economy to be built up, and for Greek and Turk and the minority populations to work together. I do not believe his remarks will lead to that. I believe it will make the position of his beloved Archbishop Makarios a great deal more difficult.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. and gallant Gentleman took him to the Dorchester; I did not.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: May I put it in this way? No one in this country gave more encouragement to Makarios to continue his battle for Enosis than the Opposition. They were the people who were content to sit back and let the Archbishop get away with refusing to condemn terrorism. There was no pressure from the Opposition to get the Archbishop to give up terrorism, and the implication of that is surely this. [Interruption.] I repeat, there was never any attempt by the Opposition to get Archbishop Makarios to condemn terrorism. I would be the first to give them credit for doing that if, in fact, they had done so.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: I very well remember our late right hon. Friend Mr. Aneurin Bevan making an appeal from the Dispatch Box. As a


result of that appeal, violence stopped for a number of months, and then we were outraged because the Government took no steps during that period to bring the two sides together.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I have as much respect for the memory of the late Mr. Aneurin Bevan as anyone, but I would sooner talk about an hon. Member who is still alive and who is not in the Chamber tonight, but who ought to be because of what she has said in the past. I refer to the lion. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). I will qualify what I said by saying that of all the people who gave the greatest possible encouragement to terrorism to continue and for the battle of Eoka to be fought by Archbishop Makarios and his friends, those most responsible are to be found on the benches opposite.
I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman who started this might now agree that we in this Chamber would do very much better if we were to try to heal old wounds. My only reason for saying what I have said tonight is because of the foul slander which the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East made against this side of the Committee. The implication of that slander was that we were the people who were responsible for bringing about the 600 deaths. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] They repeat that. Let the country judge. I think that it judged at the last General Election. Let us leave it there. All I would say is that I think it is one of the most unworthy things that the Opposition have done since I first came to the House of Commons in 1945. It is unworthy of hon. Members, on whatever side they sit, to behave in that way.

Mr. William Ross: What about India?

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to interrupt me he should rise in his place.

Mr. Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman turn his mind back to the things said by his party about hon. Members on this; side of the Committee after India was given her freedom and when there was certain bloodshed there? [HON. MEMBERS: "Before."] It was after that time, when there was certain bloodshed

there. Hon. Members opposite accused us of causing the deaths of those people.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Samuel Storey): Order. We cannot discuss India.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I am extremely grateful to you for your Ruling, Sir Samuel, because the subject mentioned by the hon. Gentleman was linked with another part of the world, Hola. I do not think that we want to discuss that tonight.
I say to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, in particular, that there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that the setting up of the Republic of Cyprus is likely to lead to the difficulties which he visualises. I believe it is important to remember that we are dealing not with Englishmen, or, if the hon. Gentleman is a Welshman, with Welshmen. We are dealing with Greeks and Turks principally. As my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) so rightly pointed out, I think that because of the past history, although not such distant history, of the Greeks and Turks it would be well for us to get as clearly defined as possible what we wish to happen in the case of each of the communities.
I should have thought that the Cyprus people would be grateful to us for having agreed to what they themselves would have agreed between themselves, and for the clear definitions which have been made in this Constitution. I should have thought that that was to be welcomed by us and by them. I honestly believe that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East will live to regret what he said tonight, because if ever anybody does want to cause any trouble now they will he able to quote him as a justification for it.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I would not have detained the Committee but for the extraordinary proposition that the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) put before us a few minute ago I have never before heard the constitutional doctrine of collective responsibility of the Cabinet for the policy of the Government described as a mean way of avoiding uttering slanders against individuals. All this—if he will forgive me


for saying so—mock indignation based on so clear a misconception of what the whole constitution of this country is based on leaves me very unmoved indeed.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman had something to say about terrorism and defence of terrorism. A people struggling to be free will struggle to be free whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman likes it or not. It was not anybody on this side of the Committee who told the Cypriot people that the thing that we are legislating for tonight could never happen. Self-determination was scorned, whether for the Greek-Cypriots or the Turkish-Cypriots and he is not entitled to do that.
The Government, of which he is at least a nominal supporter, declared in 1954 that there would never be any self-determination for any of them. It is all very well nodding agreement and then, after stumbling across this great truth, picking oneself up and going on as if nothing had happened. Once one has told people who want to be free that they can never by constitutional methods attain their freedom, one must not grumble if they proceed to try to attain it by some other method. We would. The hon. and gallant Gentleman would.
If the freedom of our country were dominated by some colonial or imperialist power by force, he would be the first to join the underground resistance movement, would he not? He would object very much to being called a terrorist if he did. He would object very much if anyone who was trying to lend him some moral support from some other country, or from the country which was oppressing his own, were described as being unpatriotic. He would think, as we think, that it is a patriotic duty to our own country to see to it that if it does things which are indefensible, they should be opposed and criticised by our own citizens in order to save the honour of the country.
That is what my right hon. and hon. Friends were doing when they were trying to persuade this reluctant Government to give up the attempt of trying to maintain British sovereignty in Cyprus against a reluctant population who were determined to win their freedom by force,

when we tried to persuade them not to do that but to negotiate some such agreement as we have got tonight. They were surely doing the right thing as Members of the British House of Commons, or does the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that they were wrong?

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that statement was made by the Government when Archbishop Makarios's principal aim was to get Enosis, and as soon as the Archbishop dropped Enosis from his aims the whole situation became changed.

Mr. Silverman: It is not really possible to re-write history quite so near to the events which we all remember. That is not so. It did not happen like that, and if the Minister who stood at the Government Dispatch Box had thought that that would happen, he could very well have said, "We do not think that Enosis, union with Greece, is the right way; self-determination for yourselves, as you would like to do it, we are prepared to discuss." But that is not what he said. He said, "Self-determination, never."
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was amply justified in saying that the Government which took that uncompromising and untenable attitude in 1954 must bear a direct collective responsibility, in which each of them personally shares, for all the unnecessary bloodshed and suffering that followed, and everyone on this side will support him. Unless we realise that, we shall go on committing errors of this kind from now until the crack of doom.

Dr. Alan Glyn: The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said that he wondered what some Government back benchers felt about this document. I, for one, welcome it. It is an agreement at last achieved after a great deal of work in which Greek and Cypriot rights in a Republic are guarded. I agree that there are stringent Clauses, but if the hon. Gentleman knows Cyprus he will know that they are probably necessary to guard the rights of those communities.
It also gives us at the same time the sovereignty which all along in our party we have demanded for bases. It achieves


these two objectives and at the same time it mends the rift between Greece and Turkey. Anyone who has visited Greece and Turkey in the last three years will know that the rift was getting greater and greater. The Government have now achieved agreement between two great Powers and have achieved what seemed almost impossible—a document agreed by Greek and Turkish Cypriots, which, I am sure, will give rise to harmony on the island.
One only hopes that the island will remain for ever in the Commonwealth, deriving, as it will, great benefits in trade and in other ways. I am sure that we shall live to say that this is a great document, and, along with many other back benchers, I wish great future prosperity to the people of Cyprus.

Mr. Richard Marsh: I would not have intervened but for the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke). His speech portrayed with an astonishing degree of clarity so much that has been at the back of this problem. He said that there is no future or prospect for Cyprus if either side goes on just throwing allegations against the other, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman missed the important point. Right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the Committee do not visualise members of the Government as a band of bloodthirsty heathens who desire to throw the whole country into warfare. Everyone on this side recognises that the Government disliked what happened in Cyprus as much as we did.
Where the hon. and gallant Gentleman goes wrong is that, at the end of this tragic period, after the loss of 600 lives, he still does not realise that what is criticised on this side is not a deliberate desire to see the nation plunged into war but a series of stupid actions which resulted without any doubt in that war. Many of us believe that the Government have the direct responsibility for every life lost as a result of that, not, because of any desire deliberately to engender the situation but because, in 1954, a statement was made in the House, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has reminded us, to the effect that self-government would never be permitted for the island.
It was not said only in 1954, on that occasion. It was said on several occasions, in September, 1955, and repeated in December, 1955. The charge which my right hon. and hon. Friends make against the Government is that all that trouble, or much of it, could have been avoided many years ago, and it was the blindness and complete inability of hon. and right hon. Members opposite to see the inevitability of what was happening in Cyprus which produced the situation confronting us today. It is not a matter of throwing out wild allegations and accusations. We regret that it happened. Unless hon. and right hon. Members opposite recognise what it is that they have done in Cyprus, they will be in danger of repeating the dose in the future.
We are all pleased to see the prospect of a Constitution and an end to this deplorable situation—which, I think, could well have been ended some time ago—but it is no good holding up the Constitution and saying, "The nightmare is over. It is all finished, and everything in Cyprus will be peace and tranquillity". That will not be so. If anyone believes that the Constitution with which we are faced will not result in many grave difficulties in the future for the Cypriot people, he is contributing to some extent towards the difficulties.
One feature of the Constitution which worries me is its inflexibility. I cannot visualise the existence for all time of a society which has as part of its Constitution divisions based on language and nationality. I am intrigued by the reference to the army of 2,000 troops over and above the police and local gendarmerie. What is the purpose of this economic burden that we are foisting upon the Cypriot people? The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the economic difficulties which will confront the Cypriot people. Of course, they will be faced with many difficulties, but I cannot believe that many parts of the Constitution will assist them in the best way to remove themselves from them.
The Government have been forced to realise that no nation in this modern age is prepared to face the prospect of long-term subjugation to another country. It did not work in India. The


unpleasant remarks made by hon. Members opposite at the prospect of freedom and independence in India would have been far more justified afterwards if freedom had not been given to India at the stage when it was. However, I will leave that point, Sir Samuel.
At the beginning there was the speech made by Mr. Hopkinson, as he then was, that Cyprus could never expect independence. Then the Government attempted to defeat Archbishop Makarios by removing him, putting him in a little cupboard, as it were, in the hope that no one would notice that he was there and he would be forgotten in due course. These things laid the foundations for a great deal of this trouble, and, unless hon. and right hon. Members opposite recognise the mistakes that they made and recognise the degree of responsibility which they must bear, they will stand in very real danger of contributing to similar situations elsewhere in the world in the future.

11.0 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Julian Amery): This Clause authorises the making of an Order establishing the Republic under what is, in effect, the Constitution annexed to the White Paper. There has been some comment on the Constitution from both sides of the Committee, and I want to put the history of it right for the record. The Greek and Turkish texts of the Constitution are the authentic texts under the Treaty.
It is, however, interesting to relate that the Constitution was drafted in English and discussed in French, because some of the Greek Government representatives did not speak English. Although the authentic texts are Greek and Turkish translations of the original English draft, by a quaint convention it was at one time proposed that the English original should be known as the translation. What has emerged after some weeks of discussions is that the Greek and Turkish texts are authentic texts but, where they differ, the British text should have the status of umpire.
The Government were not represented on the Joint Constitutional Commission, but we were consulted and were satisfied on those matters of direct interest to us.

I cite as examples of direct interest to us the status of the minority religious groups and their rights—the Maronites, the Armenians and the Latins—the status and conditions of the public service, and the basic articles of the Constitution which, along with the other signatories of the Treaty of Guarantee, we guarantee.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said in an interjection that he was supporting the Bill. I am bound to say that he chose a very odd way of doing it. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot, on the one hand, chide us for climbing down, and, on the other, chide us for having espoused a Constitution which he regards as one of considerable rigidity. I deplore the tendency he showed in his remarks to criticise and decry the Constitution.
These are not easy matters. He asked why religion should be written into the Constitution. The rivalry of Christianity and Islam in the Eastern Mediterranean is a long one, not just to be swept aside by a wave of the hand as he was doing. The thing that amazes me is the remarkably good relations which exist between the two communities at the present time.
The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) talked about the "good old days" when there was no bitterness between the Greek and Turkish communities. Of course, there was not then—because there was an arbiter between the two. When the arbiter was taken away, then came the sense of danger to each community then came the tension which we have been trying in the last few months——

Mr. Callaghan: Only in the last few months.

Mr. Amery: I was speaking of the working out of the Constitution to find a solution.

Mr. Callaghan: It is a pity that the Government did not do it earlier.

Mr. Amery: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that the Government did not do it earlier. The tension is the fruit of the decision—I am not criticising that decision--that there should be self-determination. It is when one has self-determination that each community looks to its own interests and no longer accepts the arbitership, as it has


in the past. It was this that led to cries for Enosis and for partition.

Mr. Brockway: What I said was this—that eight years ago there was very little tension, but the policy of the Government during six years intensified the antagonism, as was illustrated in the telegram that Sir Anthony Eden, when he was Prime Minister, sent to the Turkish Government.

Mr. Amery: If the hon. Gentleman means that by accepting that the principle of self-determination should be applied to Cyprus we created tension between the communities, we accept that charge. As people go towards self-government, towards political emancipation of communities, inevitably tension increases. The art of statesmanship then is to find a way of overcoming tensions which arise in those conditions. I think that the work of the Commission has to a large extent succeeded in this.
I agree with many of the commentators in the Press that it is unlikely that the Opposition will govern again in the foreseeable future, and this perhaps justified the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East making a speech which was plainly pitting the future of one community against the other.
Hon. Members on this side of the Committee—I have done it myself, but I do not withdraw a word of it—have sometimes alleged, I think with justice, that the comments made by the party opposite during the emergency contributed to prolonging the emergency, and to many of the deaths that were caused. What worries me about the speech made by the hon. Gentleman this evening is that the comments that he made will contribute to the perpetuation of tension and hostility in the island not against Field Marshal Harding or Sir Hugh Foot, but against Archbishop Makarios and Dr. Kutchuk. It is regrettable and it is a pity.
The hon. Gentleman chided us with abandoning the concept of sovereignty. Politics is the art of the possible. If we had not tried to follow the course we did I do not think that we would have got as satisfactory an agreement as we now have. I do not think that we would have got sovereignty over the bases. I do not think that we would have got as

fair a deal for both communities as we have.
If our forces and administrators had not held the ring during the years of the emergency we would not have been able to produce an agreement acceptable to the Turkish community, to the Greek community, to the Greek and Turkish Governments, and to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Fernyhough: I am sorry, but I do not think that the Under-Secretary of State saw me rise several times before he spoke. I promise that I will not detain the Committee for more than a few minutes.
The Under-Secretary of State's speech was remarkable. He said that he thought that it would be years before, according to the Press, the Opposition governed again. Some of us thought it would never be possible for the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery) to appear at the Dispatch Box, bearing in mind the stand he took in this House four or five years ago. If it is possible for a transformation of that kind in that short space of time, the possibilities as far as the British electorate is concerned are even greater.
I look at hon. Gentlemen opposite—some of those concerned are not here now—and remember that they were the determined men; they were the men who were going to hold the Empire together; they were the men who would never let Cyprus have its freedom and independence; they were the people who stood out for all those things. What has happened now? Tonight one of those hon. Gentlemen is pleading the case from the Front Bench opposite.
I now refer to the speeches made by the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) and the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke). The hon. Member for Windsor said that because there had been war between the Greeks and Turks in 1922 we should be very careful because there were bitter memories. I would remind the hon. Member that we had a war with Germany in 1939, and in 1952 and 1953 the hon. Gentleman did not think that about the Germans when he was anxious to rearm them.
The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely made a remarkable speech.


He made a bitter attack on hon. Members on this side of the Committee. He accused us of many crimes.
None of us was accused of the crimes with which the whole of the Government benches, without exception, accused Archbishop Makarios. This man, they said, was a murderer, a thug; a man of violence and arson. There was not a crime in the calendar with which he was not charged. When we pleaded that he should be put on trial, we were told that it would not be in the public interest to do so.
The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely said that no voice on this side had ever been raised to try to bring peace and tranquillity to that war-torn island. I intervened to say that I vividly remembered the amazing speech of our late friend, Aneurin Bevan, when he said that if any words of his could reach the opposing forces in Cyprus he would say that they should cease from violence and, if they did, he said that the Government would be left naked. The violence ceased for almost twelve months—and the Government took not a single step to try to bring the two conflicting sides together——

Mr. Callaghan: And does my hon. Friend not also remember that when, in fact, there was a cessation of hostilities with a view, as Grivas said at the time—and we hold no brief for him—to resuming negotiations, the Government and Field Marshal Harding treated it as an act of weakness, and called on them to surrender?

Mr. Fernyhough: Yes, of course—and this is the tragedy of the last five or six years.
When the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely charges my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) almost with treachery, I wonder what the speeches made by hon. Members opposite about Archbishop Makarios amounted to? They shut the man away. They thought they had done with him. They would never negotiate with him. Then they brought him back to the Savoy or the Dorchester, and this man with whom they were never to negotiate with—the Under-Secretary, the man who led the rebellion, has had to spend weeks and months in his company.
I hope, as others of my hon. Friends have said, that the Government will learn the lesson from this; that they will learn that there comes a time in the life of all nations that are denied independence, when, by methods of peaceful persuasion, they cannot get what they are entitled to—and what we say everyone else should have—they will automatically be compelled to take the road of violence to that end.
If we learn the lesson, the lives that have been lost will not have been lost in vain, but if we do not learn the lesson then, as sure as night follows day, there will be similar experiences with a similar waste of life, and with the end chapter exactly the same. History is merely repeating itself. If we start from the American colonies, if we come down from 1775 to 1960, the story is always the same. In the end, we concede to violence what we would not grant to reason.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(THE SOVEREIGN BASE AREAS.)

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to move, in page 1, line 24, at the end to insert:
(c) there shall be no power to use nuclear weapons from the base areas in Cyprus without previous agreement with the authorities of the Republic of Cyprus.
I am looking forward with some interest to see how the Government propose to oppose the Amendment. What I am asking for Cyprus is exactly the same kind of agreement that the Prime Minister has been trying to negotiate for this country. Throughout this debate there has been almost a conspiracy of silence about the real purpose of the bases in Cyprus. During the Second Reading debate I put a question to the Secretary of State for the Colonies asking him to explain the purpose of the bases. This is an expensive little Bill, although nothing seems to have been said about it. We are paying £40 million for a settlement in order to get the bases in Cyprus for certain purposes, and there has been a great deal of criticism of the proposal, especially in the columns of The Times, which has described the Bill as the £40 million "golden handshake" with Archbishop Makarios.
What is the purpose of the bases? The Amendment assumes that that purpose is to carry on a nuclear war. If it is, I maintain that the people of Cyprus are entitled to have a say in the conditions under which such a war should come. I know that Mr. Randolph Churchill is very unpopular with hon. Members opposite, but he sometimes lets the cat out of the bag, and he has said about Cyprus what he said about Suez. He has explained that the real reason for the Government's determination to hang on to Cyprus is that they require the island as a possible base for an attack or counter-attack upon the Soviet Union. He has said that the bases are necessary so that the bombers can go from Cyprus to bomb the oilfields of the Caucasus. He has also said that the strategy is that the bombers shall go from Cyprus to destroy certain big industrial centres in the Ukraine.
That is the background to the Amendment. I am asking that the Government of this new Republic should be given some say in the future possibility of the destruction of their island. That is not an unreasonable request. When the American bases were established in this country there was a definite arrangement between the then Prime Minister and the President of the United States that this Government should have a say before a declaration of war was made. That fact has been emphasised in the negotiations that have ben going on recently. The Prime Minister is at present negotiating with President Eisenhower for a possible admendment of the agreement relating to American bomber bases in this country. Apparently, the whole House agrees that it is reasonable that the people of this country should be consulted before this country is used as bombing bases for planes going over the U.S.S.R. because that would involve retaliation. If bombing planes went on an attack, or counter-attack, to try to destroy the oilfields of Baku or the industrial centres of the Ukraine, we could depend upon it that there would be retaliatory action.
That was exactly the possibility that the Suez group envisaged at the time of that debate. The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies remembers the argument to Captain Waterhouse. I remember an historic debate when we decided to go to Cyprus at the beginning

We can read it in HANSARD Reports for July, 1954. Then the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends were completely opposed to going to Cyprus at all. Captain Waterhouse made an historic speech, which I supported. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why historic?"] I shall explain to the hon. Member. The right hon. Member who said we must go from Cyprus to Suez was the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill). At that time the Under-Secretary for the Colonies was not looking as satisfied as he is today. I remember Captain Waterhouse's argument. Here it is——

The Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): Order. I think the hon. Member is getting rather far from the Amendment.

Mr. Hughes: I am arguing, Sir Gordon, that nuclear warfare is possible from Cyprus and that the newly established Republic of Cyprus should have a say in the matter. That is the purpose of my Amendment. The whole argument when we went to Cyprus ranged about the possibility of nuclear warfare. The hon. Gentleman remembers it quite well. The argument of the right hon. Member for Woodford at that time was that it was quite impossible in the hydrogen bomb age to argue for the retention of the base at Suez. I remember vividly the argument of Captain Waterhouse, who said that one hydrogen bomb on Cyprus and it would be like a disappearing atoll; Cyprus would be a hole in the sea.

Mr. Callaghan: And the hon. Gentleman agreed.

Mr. Hughes: And the accomplice agreed. Now, today, he is defending what at that time he opposed. The argument of the Suez group at that time was that if they had to go out of Suez because of the fear of the hydrogen bomb it was a stupid thing to go 500 miles nearer to the place from which the hydrogen bomb might come. These are the realities behind the possibilities of a base in Cyprus—that it might be used in a nuclear war. Cyprus is just as much entitled to think in terms of the possibility of being destroyed by one hydrogen bomb coming from one rocket somewhere in the Soviet Union as we are to be anxious about bombs coming to this country.
I am glad to know that there is a Left wing in Cyprus which realises this. I remember that Archbishop Makarios came to address a meeting in Committee Room of this House before this controversy became serious. He explained then that he was not against a base in Cyprus. That satisfied some hon. Gentlemen, but it did not satisfy me. I asked him, "As an Archbishop, why are you in favour of a base in Cyprus?" His reply was, "I am in favour of a base in Cyprus for precisely the same reason as the Archbishop of Canterbury is in favour of a base in Britain". My opinion of the Archbishop as a Christian went down and my opinion of him as a politician went up.
If I was in Cyprus today, I would not be a supporter of Archbishop Makarios. I would be a supporter of the Left wing, which has said, "We are not in favour of having British bases here, because the possibility is that the British might get engaged in a nuclear war, which will not be in the interests of the people of Cyprus. The result might be the destruction of the island".
The people of Cyprus are entitled to say, "Before you start on any of these adventures, you should consult us. Before you press the button, the Republic of Cyprus is entitled to be concerned about its future". I do not see how anybody in these islands can possibly object to my Amendment. The hon. Gentleman believes that there is a possibility of a hydrogen bomb attack on Cyprus. There are air-raid precautions in Cyprus. In the last six years they have spent the gigantic sum of £253,000. It is not very much. It is a very small amount compared with the expenditure on suppressing terrorism.
When the Republic is set up we should come to an agreement with the Government of Cyprus similar to that we have with the United States of America. Many hon. Gentlemen will have seen the picture in last Sunday's Sunday Times of an American officer with two keys hanging round his neck. He was to turn the key to give the warning for the rockets. I want there to be a similar arrangement with Cyprus. If the American officer here is checked by a British officer before the final twist of the key, before the island is destroyed,

the people of Cyprus are perfectly entitled to say that, if there is a British officer on the island with keys, there should be an officer of the Republic of Cyprus.

Mr. Marsh: In view of the Constitution, there would have to be three keys.

Mr. Hughes: I shall not go into the constitutional complexities of the argument. There is no answer to my argument. If there is one, I should very much like to hear it. I expect my Amendment to receive the unanimous support of the Committee.

Mr. Brockway: I want to take advantage of the Amendment to make a very serious appeal to the Secretary of State for the Colonies to give us an assurance upon this matter. He knows that there is great doubt and anxiety among the people of Cyprus at this moment about how these bases are to be used. So far as one can understand, the bases are of little value, except for air purposes. There is no deep harbour there. For air purposes they will be of little value, unless they are used for nuclear purposes.
I want to ask the Secretary of State if he can give the Committee and the people of Cyprus these assurances—first, that the bases will not be used for the maintenance of stocks of nuclear weapons; secondly, that these bases will not be used as a centre for the dispatching of missiles with nuclear warheads and, thirdly, that before they are used for this purpose, as is suggested in my hon. Friend's Amendment, a representative of the Republic of Cyprus will be consulted.
11.30 p.m.
I appreciate that there is one difference between the British bases in Cyprus and the American bases here. The bases in Cyprus will be on land under British sovereignty. I beg the right hon. Gentleman not to justify a failure to consult with the people of Cyprus upon that technical ground [HON. MEMBERS: "It is nothing to do with them."] It is a small island and if British bases on that island are used for the dispatch of rocket missiles with nuclear warheads, inevitably it will bring destruction to all the people of Cyprus whether they live in areas of British sovereignty or not. It is a matter of sheer honour that our


Parliament and our Government should have consultations with representatives of the Republic before those bases are used for that purpose.

Mr. J. Amery: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has moved an Amendment which proposes that there shall be a veto on the part of the Republic of Cyprus on the use of certain weapons in the sovereign base areas, or that they should have, as it were, a key to the cupboard. The hon. Member prayed in aid the opinions of my friend, Mr. Randolph Churchill. I yield to no one in my affection for Mr. Churchill, but I would rather interpret the policy of Her Majesty's Government myself than accept an ex parte assessment by the hon. Member of what Mr. Churchill said on the subject.
The hon. Member asked why we need the bases. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence has made plain in the House that we need them essentially for three reasons, to fulfil our obligations to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, to fulfil our obligations to CENTO and to uphold other British alliances and interests in the area. In the time in which I have been a Member of Parliament the hon. Gentleman has not shown himself a great supporter of these causes.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: We should still be in Suez.

Mr. Amery: I could comment on that. I ask the hon. Member to recognise the logic of our position. If we base our policy on N.A.T.O., CENTO and other British alliances and interests in the area, we must reserve to ourselves the means of fulfilling our obligations. Of course, it is plain that in the sovereign base areas we shall be deploying units of the Royal Air Force and the Army in an age when nuclear weapons are becoming increasingly the decisive weapons of the Armed Forces. Until effective provisions for general disarmament have been made, if ever they are. I can see no ground for limiting our freedom of action or, to put it in other words, limiting our ability to fulfil our obligations and discharge our responsibilities. The hon. Member made plain that he supported the opponents of Archbishop Makarios and the hon. Member for Eton and Slough

(Mr. Brockway) did the same. I have no doubt that the Archbishop will see for himself what a broken reed the Left-wing elements of this country are to lean upon.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire suggested that we were facing in this matter the same problem as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had been discussing over the American bases in this country. I will not seek to pronounce on the bigger problem, but there is a very big difference here. These sovereign base areas in Cyprus are retained—and I stress the word—under full British sovereignty.
The hon. Member for Eton and Slough asked certain questions about the bases. I do not dispute the legitimacy of asking these questions, but under the terms of the Treaty it is for Her Majesty's Government and this House of Commons, and this House of Commons alone, to decide the use that should be made of the bases. It is on that ground that I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Callaghan: We are grateful for the explanation which the Under-Secretary of State has given us. He has made clear what he has in mind, and, indeed, what the Minister of Defence has in mind, for the use of these bases. There are certain questions which I want to put to the hon. Gentleman, because my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has asked questions which may be troublesome but which nevertheless will be increasingly asked.
I do not share with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire the view that it is our job either to side with Archbishop Makarios or to be opposed to him in the matter. I certainly would not say that it is our job to be on the side of the Left wing parties in Cyprus. There is to be a general election in Cyprus, and it will be a very difficult one. It would be wrong for this House of Commons to say that it is on one side or the other in any general election that is to be fought.
However, I say to the Under-Secretary of State, to the Government and to hon. Members opposite that the sort of questions which my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire has asked


are bound to be asked by the Cypriot people. They really will not be content with the reply which I thought the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) muttered, that it is nothing to do with them. If I may say so, that does credit more to the noble Lord's logic than to his common sense.
After all, if people are to be in that island, knowing that it is to be a base for nuclear stocks, they are bound to ask questions, whether the matter is anything to do with them or not. If they find that under an agreement that has been concluded they have no legal right to quarrel with it, then they will soon find other reasons for doing so.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The alternative is not to have a Constitution.

Mr. Callaghan: I quite agree. But the noble Lord has not voted against Clause 1. He has agreed to Clause 1. I therefore presume that he is in favour of the Constitution. I agree that the noble Lord is more logical and more faithful to his beliefs than is the Under-Secretary of State. There was a time when they used to hunt together, and the comment which the noble Lord has just made was certainly the opinion held by the Under-Secretary of State three years ago. At least the noble Lord has the virtue of consistency.
The trouble with which we are faced is that we are to have a Constitution. The hon. Gentleman has recommended it to the Committee and we have accepted it. We cannot push these ideas under the rug. These questions will be asked increasingly if we are to have bases in areas like this, where the people in whose country they are have no control over what use we make of them, although the weapons of nuclear war are of such a character that they can be obliterated. This is one of my objections to the sort of base and to the type of agreement that has been concluded, not that I wish to overturn it now.
Unreality will soon be completely realistic and the Government will see in five years' time that they will have to say something more to us. Take CENTO. I do not know for what those initials, stand, but they include Iran, Pakistan, Turkey. [An HON. MEMBER:

"Not Iraq."] No. I cannot remember what the other countries are, but it is those three. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do not forget the United Kingdom."] I will not forget the United Kingdom. If we want a base for CENTO purposes, would it not be better to have one in one of the CENTO countries which is on the spot rather than have it in Cyprus? [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary may hold a different view. We are getting used to this conversion. But there is strong military opinion about this base which says that it cannot be reinforced, supplied, defended or evacuated. This is not just my view. It is the view of one of the most eminent military authorities in this country today.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: What is his name?

Mr. Callaghan: He is a very distinguished field marshal who would not be unknown to the noble Lord. I shall be prepared to give him the name privately.
This is a view which is held in high military quarters. Do the Government believe that the country is getting value for money if such an opinion can be held by someone who has fought with considerable distinction for his country in the last war? If we are going to use these bases, they should surely be in territories where the Government concerned have control over them and accede to their use.
I appreciate the psychological difficulties of the Government and of hon. Members opposite. But suppose we were starting with a clean slate in the Middle East. Suppose nobody had ever said the word "Never". Suppose we had never evacuated Suez. Suppose that we had insisted that we should have a base in Cyprus. Do hon. Members opposite believe—I do not believe they do—that with a clean start we should choose Cyprus on which to put a base?

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Norman Hulbert): The hon. Member is going rather beyond the Amendment. He appears to be speaking to the Question "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Callaghan: I am sorry, Sir Norman. I agree that I did get a bit wide of the Amendment. I did not want to return to this subject, and I thought


we might have cleared up the whole matter now.

The Temporary Chairman: Is it the wish of the Committee that we should discuss the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," as well as the Amendment?

Mr. Callaghan: I would undertake not to inflict a second speech on the Committee.
Does the Committee think that if we had a clean slate we would choose Cyprus voluntarily as a base? That seems to me to be a serious question which the Committee ought to consider. It is not an island which is naturally fitted or suited for the purpose of a base. Yet it is to this island that we are committing the major part of our defence effort and output in the Middle East. We are entitled to hear a little more from the Under-Secretary than we have heard about these questions.
The Under-Secretary says that we should use it for essential British purposes in the Middle East. What has he got in mind? When we went into Suez we theoretically had the right to use a base in Libya, but such was the state of local opinion that we could make no use of it. We had to give an undertaking to the Ruler and the people of Libya that we would not use that base for the purpose of the Suez operation. When he says that we are going to use this for British purposes, is he saying that if the Government felt it right to launch an invasion on a Middle East territory to defend vital British interests—I suppose they might feel this was necessary at some time—they would be able to use these bases even against the will of the Cypriot people? Would they not be much more likely to find themselves in the same position that they found in Libya?
Somebody is going to say how unpatriotic the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East is. I expect that we shall get another speech from the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke). But the unpatriotic questions we ask now, hon. Members opposite answer in five years time.
11.45 p.m.
It used to be very unpatriotic to say that self-determination would come to the island of Cyprus. But the Government

now come and recommend it to us. It used to be very unpatriotic to say that Archbishop Makarios was the only man who could speak for the Greek-Cypriots. The Under-Secretary took the view that one had only to deport the Archbishop and new men would arise. He said so in a speech. He said, "Get rid of the Archbishop," and hon. Members opposite will remember waving their Order Papers when he was deported. The late Mr. Aneurin Bevan said that one would have thought we had won another Trafalgar. It was unpatriotic at that time to suggest that those new men would not arise. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely made the same speeches five years ago. But they did not arise, and the Government dealt with the Archbishop.
All the unpatriotic questions being asked on this side today will have to be faced by the Government in the next few years, so they had better make up their mind to it now. It is not unpatriotic to ask hon. Members opposite to free themselves of part of their psychological trauma about the island of Cyprus and to consider the question as it actually stands, and there is no sign whatever so far that we are so doing in relation to the bases. The word "sovereignty" is flung around the Chamber as though it means that the Conservative Party has salved its soul and that, because sovereignty is retained over the bases, they can recommend the Agreement to the Committee.
Every hon. Member knows, and the Colonial Secretary said so clearly, that we cannot use these bases unless we have the consent of the people. We have got sovereignty. Legally we can do so, and yet everyone knows that we need the consent of the people because of the nature of the bases and the size of the territory over which we are operating. It really is the job of the House of Commons to look at this issue and to ask the most searching questions of the Government about how these things are likely to turn out. In five years' time it may be we shall be reading this debate all over again when we come to the next set of negotiations about the continuation of the bases. It is costing now £13½ million to £14 million, and in terms of value to the taxpayer I wonder whether we are getting value for money. I am sure that we would never have chosen


Cyprus. I doubt whether it is worth £14 million a year to us. I say to the Under-Secretary that these questions which have been put from this side are bound to be asked by any intelligent people who have to sit down and think about these problems.

Mr. Brian Harrison: I believe that the hon. Gentleman made some mention of £14 million a year.

Mr. Callaghan: I am sorry, I should have said over the period of five years. And at the end of that five years a fresh agreement will have to be negotiated and we shall have to consider whether it is worth while again.
I would not, for the reasons I have given earlier, support my hon. Friend (Mr. Emrys Hughes) in the Division Lobby on this Amendment. [HON.MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members opposite are now betraying their sense of irresponsibility, If they really believe that at this stage the House of Commons should seek to alter an agreement that has been entered into they are betraying a sense of irresponsibility when a general election is about to be fought out on this. But it is our job to point out the weaknesses, to ask the Government whether they have faced those weaknesses, and to invite them to state what their conclusions are.

Mr. Marsh: One gets the impression on this issue that the sovereign base areas are nothing more than probably the most expensive Government face-saver the British taxpayer has ever had to pay out for. It is difficult to find any practical purpose behind them.
During the course of the speech that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) made in moving his Amendment, several hon. Members opposite were murmuring "It is no business of theirs" when he referred to what was to happen in the sovereign base areas. If that were true in fact as it is in theory, many of the difficulties would disappear, although there would still be difficulties left behind. There are the practical difficulties in maintaining the areas, feeding them with supplies and so forth. I believe it was said at one stage that there would be 20,000 troops held there in those circumstances.
The most serious problem, however, is that there is nothing which evokes a more hostile reaction, principally because of fear, among a local population than the nuclear weapon. It frightens ordinary people more than anything else.

Sir Douglas Glover: Is that a personal opinion of the hon. Gentleman, or does he suggest that it is a general fear?

Mr. Marsh: I should assume that few people would be particularly joyful about the existence in the vicinity of a nuclear base which would, presumably, in any country be the first object of attack by any enemy in close proximity. Even people who would support wholeheartedly the existence of nuclear bases would, surely, not claim that the local population round about had any reason to feel particularly happy and secure at the prospect. There is, perhaps, a great deal of mystique and myth surrounding the subject, but it does engender more fear than anything else. It evokes more fear than does the idea of an ordinary conventional unit of military forces in the neighbourhood.
If that is so, and if it is also a fact, as I believe it is, that these bases are of no value without the existence of helpful public opinion among the Cypriot people, I should imagine that a nuclear weapon base would be the last kind of base to have in an area where the population would immediately be opposed to its existence.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Does the hon. Gentleman think that, when the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot leaders entered into the London and Zurich Agreements. with the support of the communities for whom they stroke, they were so naive as to suppose that the British bases. which formed the essential part of those Agreements. would he used merely for bow and arrow practice?

Mr. Marsh: I should have thought that any hon. Gentleman opposite who was lulled into the belief that there would be no effective weapons and no effective means of warfare apart from nuclear weapons would be lapsing into very dangerous military thinking. Quite apart from that, we come back to the


central point that, as the Government themselves have said, in this context one cannot have an effective base without the co-operation of the local population. Earlier, in a jocular question to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire, I suggested that if we were to have the type of machinery which we have in this country for controlling bases, where we have two keys, three keys would be needed in Cyprus, one for the Turkish interest, one for the Greek interest and one for the British interest. While that was intended as a jocular remark, it remains true, nevertheless, that, in a country which has a great complexity of interests, a nuclear base would be the last type of base one would want in such an insecure background.
Even at this late stage, very few people have any real idea of what the Government want in these particular bases and why this spot is so important. The size of the bases has varied and the arguments for and against them vary. We have now reached the stage when we are entitled to ask what the purpose behind them is. A great deal has been paid in money and lives for them, and if we are to have bases for purely military purposes, the Committee ought to be persuaded that they are absolutely essential. If they are to be retained for purposes of nuclear weapons, the Committee ought to be assured that they can fulfil that function without causing more danger than they can possibly alleviate.

Sir D. Glover: I had not intended to intervene until I heard some of the arguments which seem to me to be so far from the truth. This situation as compared with many of our other bases and negotiations appears to be confused in the mind of the hon. Member for Cardiff South-East (Mr. Callaghan). It is totally different in that in Cyprus the problem was that the majority of the Cypriot people were Greek and wanted to join the mainland of Greece as one sovereign country, whereas the minority, the Turks, objected that they should not do so.
Both Turkey and Greece are part of the free Western world alliance of N.A.T.O. It therefore seems to me that after these very long negotiations, and having reached an agreement by which they will have their sovereignty, the

situation is totally different from that in Egypt and elsewhere, because the national interest of the Greek-Cypriots is for the independence of mainland Greece, and that of the Turkish-Cypriots is for the independence of mainland Turkey, while their own private domestic interest is for the independence of their island.
I cannot, therefore, see why there should be any objection now or in the future to this Agreement. I agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff South-East that in these matters it is very difficult to look into the future, but this Agreement starts with a far fairer wind because the interests of the people of the island are bound up with the N.A.T.O. alliance, and, therefore, with good will on the part of the two communities, they will favour our bases now that their own sovereignty has been agreed to.
They will have the same objectives. They will want both the Greek and Turkish nations to remain independent, and their own interest is in the inviolability, and strength of the N.A.T.O. alliance. For these reasons, I believe that they will give our bases the fair wind without which, I agree, they could not be very successful. I believe that the bases in Cyprus will serve a very valuable N.A.T.O. rôle in the years to come and will receive support in the island itself.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am surprised that I have not had any support from the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), because he recently rose in his seat to urge the Prime Minister that the control of the bases for nuclear weapons should not be in the hands of military people but in the hand of politicians. All that I am suggesting is that
there shall be no power to use nuclear weapons from the base areas in Cyprus without previous agreement with the authorities of the Republic of Cyprus.
I listened carefully to the Under-Secretary of State's speech, but he did not come anywhere near discussing the Amendment. It is true that on one occasion the question of nuclear weapons did arise in this discussion. It has also been referred to in the leading, article in The Times. Here I am asking for the Republic of Cyprus only what the hon. and gallant Member for


the Isle of Ely has been asking for the British people. I cannot understand why he will not come with me into the Division Lobby.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. John Stonehouse: rose——

12 m.

The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): On this Question, I said to the hon. Member that it was understood that we would have a full debate on the previous Amendment. I thought that it was understood that the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", would be accepted without debate, though with a Division if need be.

Mr. Stonehouse: It was not understood by hon. Members on the back benches on this side of the Committee that we would not have an opportunity to return to some of the questions not dealt with in the discussions on the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes).

Mr. Callaghan: It was my intention, when I said that I would not inflict a second speech on the Committee and therefore you, Sir William, let me go rather wide, that we should try to conclude our discussions on the Amendment. I cannot bind any hon. Member, but that was certainly my intention.

Mr. Stonehouse: I did not inflict any speech on the Committee during the discussion on the Amendment because I understood that there would be a discussion on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East to say that he would not speak on the Question now before the Committee, but I wish to speak on it.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Chair is put in an awkward position. Certainly, as the understanding went with the Chair, it was that the whole debate was taking place on the Amendment, and that there would not be a second debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
I thought that that was the understanding of the whole Committee, but if that were not so in the case of the hon. Member, perhaps it would be right that he should make his speech. If that be allowed, it is very difficult to restrict the debate further. The Committee has been misled into accepting a state of affairs which was not in fact the state of affairs which is developing now. I would hope that the hon. Member would allow me to abide by the understanding—which I believe was the understanding on both sides of the Committee—and put the Question.

Mr. Stonehouse: With respect, Sir William, I should like to have an opportunity to make just a few points on Clause 4—[Interruption.]—on Clause 2——

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I think that the hon. Member will have every opportunity of making a speech on the Question of Clause 4 standing part of the Bill.

Mr. Stonehouse: The specific points I have to raise are in relation to Clause 2. I shall also be speaking, if I should catch your eye, Sir William, on Clause 4. There were several points that were not raised on Clause 2, and I have been sitting patiently for the past two hours for an opportunity to speak on the Clause. I shall not refer——

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. Before allowing the hon. Member to develop his speech, I must say to the Committee and, in particular, to the hon. Member, that it will be impossible for the Chair to accept these agreements between the House or Committee as a whole if individual hon. Members are not prepared to abide by them. The rest of the Committee was quite clear——

Mr. Stonehouse: No.

The Deputy-Chairman: It was understood that full debate would take place on the Amendment, on the understanding that it could go beyond the Amendment, and could include the substance of the debate on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". That was on the understanding that the Question on Clause 2 would be put without debate, but with a decision, and a vote, if necessary.

Mr. Ross: On a point of order, Sir William. This was not understood at the start of the debate on the last Amendment at all. It arose only during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), when he seemed to your mind to be going wide of the actual Amendment. I would content that, according to the strict rules of order, on the subject of the Amendment, we could not possibly discuss the whole Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is quite correct. It was because it would have been impossible for the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) to have made on the Amendment the speech that he was making. I was not in the Chair myself, but I was in the Committee and heard what was going on. It was because the Chair, for the convenience of the Committee, allowed the hon. Member to develop the whole argument, going beyond the Amendment, and then allowed the rest of the Committee to continue the debate in that sense, that we are in our present position. If the hon. Member insists on continuing his speech it is very difficult for this Committee, and for the occupant of the Chair, to carry on in a manner of good faith which is for the convenience of all concerned.

Mr. Stonehouse: My point is in relation to a question raised in the Second Reading debate last Thursday. A very important question was then asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), and the Under-Secretary's answer was that the bases in Cyprus are under the full sovereignty of the United Kingdom, and therefore the question of how the base areas would be used——

Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Sir William. In view of the difficulty in which the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) is putting you and the Committee, would it not be possible for him to address these remarks on Third Reading?

The Deputy-Chairman: In reply to that point, of order, I do not know what the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Storehouse) proposes to say, but I should have thought that it was not asking too much of an hon. Member to

suggest to him that he should try to avail himself of another opportunity, rather than to put the Chair, and the whole Committee, in the awkward position in which he is now putting us.

Mr. Stonehouse: I do not wish to delay the Committee very long, but I want these specific questions to be cleared up. We raised them last Thursday, when the Under-Secretary, although he still had three minutes before the end of the debate, chose not to reply to them. This is in relation to the use of the bases in Cyprus. We understand that these bases are to be used only by United Kingdom forces. In fact, the Agreement, in Annex B, Part II, Sections 2 and 3, on pages 21 and 22, quite clearly indicates that these base areas are for the use of United Kingdom forces only. The Agreement goes out of its way to refer only to the Armed Services of the United Kingdom.
As I indicated at the end of the debate on Thursday, Section 4, paragraph 2 of this Annex provides that the use of the air space over the Republic of Cyprus shall be limited to United Kingdom aircraft. Paragraph 2 refers to the use of United Kingdom military aircraft flying in the air space over the territory of the Republic without restriction. Surely this quite clearly gives the Republic of Cyprus the opportunity of objecting to the use of its air space by any other country than the United Kingdom. The particular question addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking to the Under-Secretary——

Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order. There is a deliberate attempt to prevent my hon. Friend from being heard. Whatever may be the opinion of the Chair—or the Committee—of my hon. Friend's speech, he is at least entitled to be heard.

Mr. Stonehouse: In what circumstances can the bases in Cyprus be used other than by United Kingdom aircraft or United Kingdom Forces? In an earlier speech the Under-Secretary referred to the use of the bases for N.A.T.O., CENTO and other of the British alliances. In view of the importance of these alliances it is curious that no reference is made to them in Annex B. We are therefore left with the question in our minds: what would be


the situation if the United States wished to use the bases and airfields on the island for reconnaissance, and wished to use the air space over the territory of the Republic for its own aircraft? Do we not understand from a careful reading of Section 4, paragraph 2 of Annex B that the Republic would have to he consulted about the use of its air space by aircraft other than those of the United Kingdom?
As has been said in earlier speeches, the use of the bases will depend on the good will not only of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus but also of the Cypriots themselves—and not only the majority of the Cypriot people but even a minority. If a minority objects to the use to which these bases are being put they can put the operation of those bases in jeopardy. It is therefore essential to have clarification about political consultation between the United Kingdom Government and the Government of the Republic of Cyprus to the extent to which the bases are to be used.
I would also ask the Under-Secretary to consider the question of Cyprus's membership of N.A.T.O. Is the Republic to be admitted to N.A.T.O.? If so, will it have a part in determining the policies of N.A.T.O., and therefore some part in determining the use to which the bases will be put, as an aspect of the N.A.T.O. alliance? I apologise to you, Sir William, for the earlier misunderstanding, but I thank you for the opportunity to make these points.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Charles A. Howell: On a point of order, Sir William. May I call your attention to the fact that there is not a quorum of Members present?

The Deputy-Chairman: It is my opinion that, looking through the door, I can see a full complement of hon. Members.

Mr. Howell: Is it in order, Sir William, for people outside the Bar to be counted as being in the Committee?

The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, that is so.

Mr. J. Amery: In view of what you said earlier, Sir William, I shall make

my remarks on this Clause very short. The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) asked me two or three questions. The last he asked was about the admission of Cyprus to N.A.T.O. He will realise that that is not a matter on which I can pronounce. It is a matter for the Republic of Cyprus to decide whether it wishes to join and for the N.A.T.O. Powers collectively to decide whether they would accept the membership of the Republic.
The hon. Member repeated a question he raised at the last minute of the debate on Thursday—or, he would say, that it was in the last two or three minutes—basing himself on Annex B of the Treaty. I think he is in some confusion on the matter. Annex B relates to the facilities which the United Kingdom will enjoy on, or from, the territory of the Republic. It relates to the use of ground facilities in the Republic, including a very wide range of facilities. Where the territory of the Republic is concerned, the arrangement is plainly one between the United Kingdom and the Republic, although it is one which is guaranteed and underwritten by the Greek and Turkish Governments as well. Annex B does not relate to the use of the sovereign base areas. That is the distinction, and I think that is the cause of the confusion in the mind of the hon. Member.
The hon. Member for Wednesbury, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), and other hon. Members who spoke earlier on the Amendments, stressed the importance of the good will of the people of the island. We have always taken the same view that the good will of the people of Cyprus is extremely important to the successful operation of the bases. I believe that there are more reasons for expecting that good will in the case of Cyprus than in the case of many bases we have had in the past. There are strong economic reasons, including the expenditure of the Services in the island, amounting to between £15 million and £20 million a year. There are political reasons, which my hon. Friend mentioned earlier. There are links with Greece and Turkey, both of which are members of N.A.T.O. and one of which is a member of the CENTO alliance.There is also the


very long-standing tradition of friendship which, in both communities and the United Kingdom, has grown and survived the emergency and troubles of the last few years. Finally, for what it is worth, and I do not exaggerate it, at the end of our discussions there was an atmosphere of good will in the island of Cyprus which I think surprised all of us in all three delegations which had been working on the problem. This, I think, is a good augury for the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(OPERATION OF EXISTING LAWS.)

Motion made, and question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Stonehouse: A number of points were not cleared up in the explanation given on Second Reading. I refer, in particular, to those parts of the Clause referring to the laws of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. We on this side should like to know why special reference is made to the laws of the Federal Legislature of Rhodesia and Nyasaland and why these are specifically excluded in this way. Are we to understand that it is because of some agreement reached with the Federal Prime Minister in 1957? Is this an understanding with him? Why are the Federal laws specifically excluded?

Mr. J. Amery: The point raised by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) is an easy one to deal with and relates to subsection (6). The subsection does three things. First, defines what is meant by "existing law". The Clause is aimed at dealing with the operation of the existing law of the United Kingdom so far as it applies to Cyprus. The general principle at which the Clause aims is that the existing United Kingdom law applying to the Colony of Cyprus should continue to apply to the Republic of Cyprus, subject to certain qualifications.
One qualification is that the United Kingdom Government and other competent authorities can revise or revoke the laws in question. Another is that, where the existing law distinguishes, as it does in many cases—for instance, the Army and Air Force Acts—between de

pendent and independent members of the Commonwealth, Cyprus should be treated as if it were an independent member of the Commonwealth. A third qualification is set out in the Schedule, which lists a number of Acts whose adaptation is necessary because they would not be caught by the general provision in subsection (1).
The subsection also applies the provisions of subsection (1)—that is to say, those which make existing United Kingdom law as it applies to the Colony applicable to the Republic—to the laws of the Colonies, Protectorates and Trust Territories under the United Kingdom. Do I carry the hon. Gentleman with me so far?

Mr. Stonehouse: Not completely.

Mr. Amery: I will try to explain it again. The object of the Clause is to apply to the Republic, subject to the qualifications I explained a moment ago, the existing law of the United Kingdom as it applies to the Colony, in such matters as the Army and Air Force Acts, Imperial Preference, import duties, exchange control and other such matters. We are concerned with applying not only existing United Kingdom law to the Republic, but also existing law in the Colonies, Protectorates and Trust Territories. Do I carry the hon. Gentleman with me now?

Mr. Stonehouse: Yes.

Mr. Amery: Two of the Federal Territories are Protectorates. It has been for some time a convention of Parliament that Parliament does not legislate in the United Kingdom for Southern Rhodesia or for the Federation or for any of the territories in the Federation in matters which are within the legislative competence of the Federation or of Southern Rhodesia.
At the risk of anticipating a point the hon. Gentleman may raise, I will tell the Committee that I realise that there are certain matters which remain within the competence of the United Kingdom and over which we could legislate in respect both of Southern Rhodesia and of the Federation, but in all those matters which are within the legislative competence of Southern Rhodesia and the Federation, and accepted as within their competence, it has become the convention that we do not legislate for them.
Therefore, when in this Clause and in subsection (6) we say that the existing law in the United Kingdom shall apply in respect of the Republic as it has in respect of the Colony of Cyprus and that this shall be the case for Colonies, Protectorates and Trust Territories we have to go on, if we are to keep faith with that convention, to exempt from this Clause those matters which come within the legislative purview of Southern Rhodesia and the Federation.

Mr. Callaghan: I think that we are following the argument, but I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman to give me a practical and concrete example of what this means. I am not trying to trip him up.

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman may have succeeded in tripping me up. Whether he intended to is another question.
I cannot give him all the provisions. There are certain matters accepted as being within the legislative purview of either the Federal Legislature or the Southern Rhodesian Legislature. Where any such matters arise it would be wrong for us to seek to dictate what pattern Southern Rhodesia or the Federation should pursue in their application regarding the Republic of Cyprus. That is all we are trying to say.

Mr. Callaghan: I follow the point, but this is not a long established convention. It was part of the bargain with the Prime Minister of the Federal Republic in April or May of 1957. I may be wrong, but this is the first time I have seen any reference to it in a Statute. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) was right to raise it in this way. It is in fact altering the status of the Central African Federation and, as I understand the explanation of the hon. Gentleman, putting it more nearly in the position of, say, Australia or Canada than any protectorate. Am I right in thinking that?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman's memory is sometimes strained a little. There is a similar provision in Section 2 (4) of the Federation of Malaya Independence Act of 1957.

Mr. Callaghan: I am right in thinking that this is the 1957 Convention that we are discussing?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Member is wrong in thinking that this is the first time it has appeared in a Statute.

Mr. Callaghan: I will concede that to the hon. Gentleman. I cannot remember all the Statutes. It would not be in the Ghana Independence Act because that was in 1956 and this convention did not come into force or was not announced until 1957.
I am sorry to be dull about this but I do not understand how legislation in the Federation has an effect on the Republic of Cyprus. The hon. Gentleman has done his best to explain and I am sorry that I am not clear. It is not his fault, it is probably mine. At the time we felt that this was a backdoor way of giving Dominion status to the Central African Federation. Since then, when the Federation seemed to be well on its way to getting dominion status and the Federation Prime Minister was pressing for it, there has been a backward move and now we are not discussing in 1960 the question of Dominion status as it was thought that we should be.
I regret that this should be in the Bill. It seems to me that, a Conservative Government having announced that they had invented the convention and in fact that is all they did—conventions grow up and this convention was suddenly born—having announced that this convention had grown up, they put it in the Malaya legislation which I did not notice, and now it is here. I hope that it will not be adduced that we on this side of the Committee would be agreeable to Dominion status being conceded to the Federation of Rhodesia and Nysaland in 1960.

Mr. Stonehouse: Would not my hon. Friend agree that ever since this convention became known it has been continuously opposed by the Opposition?

12.30 a.m.

Mr. J. Amery: I would only add that the extent of the hon. Gentleman's suspicions rivals anything that I found in the Eastern Mediterranean. There really is no need to see anything so sinister in all this.
A number of laws are passed in different parts of the Commonwealth by different competent authorities which can have a bearing on other parts of the Commonwealth. Some of them seem to me to be very improbable. The Act covering the hunting of seals in the North Pacific has an application to Cyprus, but I am bound to say that it defeated me when I first discovered it. The Whaling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1934, also could have an application to Cyprus, although it is many years since whales have been seen in the vicinity. There are laws passed in Southern Rhodesia or the Federation which could have application to Cyprus. Therefore, it is important to cover these things.
As I say, there is no sinister motive or intention behind this, and I would beg the hon. Gentleman to accept for once that this is a case of things being what they seem.

Mr. Callaghan: For once, I will accept that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(CITIZENSHIP.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Norman Pannell: I rise merely to seek clarification of one aspect of this very complicated Clause. During the Second Reading debate, my right hon. Friend said:
Cypriots now established in this country will continue to enjoy citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and that citizenship will continue whether or not Cyprus remains in the Commonwealth.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew) thereupon asked:
Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the legislation we pass in this Parliament will effectively provide against Cypriot citizens resident in England being accorded British citizenship in any circumstances in which they may be accorded Cyprus citizenship by the Cyprus Government? So far as we are concerned, they may hold only one citizenship. Can he assure us on that point?
My right hon. Friend replied:
I think that that is the position."—10FricIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1960; Vol. 626, c. 1620.]
Surely by Act of Parliament we cannot deprive the Cypriots in this country of their Cypriot nationality which they enjoy

in addition to their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Only the Cypriot Government could deprive the Cypriots in this country of that citizenship, and if, should they elect to leave the Commonwealth, the Cyprus Government refrain from depriving the Cypriots in this country of citizenship they will therefore continue to enjoy dual citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies and Cyprus whereas British residents in Cyprus will become aliens in that country.

Mr. Stonehouse: May we also have a little clarification on a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) during the speech of the Colonial Secretary on the Second Reading debate? My hon. Friend raised the very interesting question—I think the Colonial Secretary called it the fascinating question—about the possibility of women going into the sovereign areas to have their children, so enabling them to have British citizenship. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would have the point dealt with in the winding up speech by the Under-Secretary of State, but we did not have the benefit of that clarification. I am wondering whether we could have it on this occasion.
The other question I wish to raise is about the position under the British Nationality Act of Cyprus Government servants who have been employed in Cyprus and who have not lived in the United Kingdom. May I ask whether Section 6 (1,b) of the British Nationality Act, 1948, would apply to these servants? Will they have an opportunity, if they so elect, to apply for British citzenship?
I should also like to have clarification of Clause 4 (3,b) of the Bill. Why is the period of 2½ years used in this subsection? What is the significance of that period?

Mr. Callaghan: I should like to ask the Under-Secretary a question. I have had a letter today from a former resident of the United Kingdom who is now resident in Cyprus. He says that there is provision in the Agreement protecting fully the rights of free exit from and entry into Cyprus, that there are facilities for transferring money, property ownership, and so on, for British citizens of United Kingdom origin living in Cyprus. But, he says, similar protection has not been provided for two British citizens


resident in Cyprus who went to Cyprus during the last few years and are British citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, though not of United Kingdom origin.
I will give the Under-Secretary an opportunity of getting the answer to that question. This is one of the complications that one gets when we have an Agreement that is tied down so exactly. There can be very few of these people. But my correspondent is right. Why should he not be in the same position as I should have thought, in logic, a British citizen of United Kingdom origin? If he lived in this country he would be. He admittedly did not start in this country, but he did not come from Cyprus. He came from somewhere else. He becomes a British citizen. He goes to Cyprus. We have made very full provision for the protection of the rights of United Kingdom citizens who go to Cyprus. We have said that they can transfer their money and capital in and out. They can have free exits there and entry into Cyprus. They can transfer property. But we seem to have left out this little group. Perhaps it has not occurred to anybody yet.
In the case of a man who was not horn in this country and was not born in Cyprus, but who has lived in this country and has made his home in Cyprus, where does he fall? He is not a Cypriot. Under this Agreement as I have read it—it is complicated, but I think I understand it—he is not a Cypriot nor is he going to be treated as a British citizen of United Kingdom origin. Could the Under-Secretary give an indication—I have intentionally spun out my remarks so that he might have an opportunity to get the information—where this man falls, and what his rights will be?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): Perhaps it may be of help to the Committee generally if I explain the background, which will help provide the answer to each of the questions which have been put to me.
Although it is tempting to go back co the Treaty of Berlin of 1878, I think I can conveniently start with the British Nationality Act, 1948, passed when the party opposite was in power. Under that Act there is an arrangement

whereby every person who was formerly a British subject—that is, living in a country of the Commonwealth or in the United Kingdom or in any of our Colonies—with a few exceptions, as there always are in these nationality matters, acquires a general status and a special status.
The general status is that of a British subject or Commonwealth citizen, according to choice, in the country in which the person happens to be; but I must say that in law they mean exactly the same thing. But in order to take that general status, the citizen must acquire a special status. In the case of people of Cyprus the special status which they acquire by virtue of the British Nationality Act, 1948, is citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
That is the citizenship they now have. It is also the citizenship which they will continue to have unless, as a result of the Treaty or of the provisions of an Order in Council made under Clause 4, they have that citizenship taken away from them. But they will mostly not have that citizenship taken away from them unless, as a result of the Treaty also—and perhaps I should add there will no doubt be a law passed by the new Republic of Cyprus to implement it and give it administrative detail—those people acquire a new status, namely the status of citizen of the Republic of Cyprus.
Now, therefore, I come conveniently to the first question put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell), concerning the position of Cypriots in the United Kingdom, whom we loosely call Cypriots. In fact, they are all citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. The position is that a very large number of them will acquire what, in the first place, will be dual citizenship. They will be entitled to retain their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of their residence here at the time of independence, but many of them will also automatically acquire a new special citizenship of the Republic of Cyprus, because they are people who are ordinarily resident in Cyprus. Therefore, the point on which my hon. Friend requires assurance is one on which I can easily give him that assurance—that those people will not lose their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

Mr. N. Pannell: The point I wanted to make was that Cypriots in this country will continue to enjoy United Kingdom citizenship as well as Cyprus citizenship in many cases, whereas Britishers in Cyprus will be declared aliens if Cyprus leaves the Commonwealth.

Mr. Renton: There are safeguards which, in that event, will enable some people, not everybody, to remain citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies—therefore British subjects and Commonwealth citizens—even if Cyprus should leave the Commonwealth. The matter is somewhat complicated. I could go into all the detail of it, and if my hon. Friend presses me, I will. Perhaps he would be content with an assurance from me that, at any rate, these classes of persons will be in the position he would wish, that is those who are referred to in Section 3 of Annex D, and more particularly in paragraph 2, sub-paragraphs (a) to (e) of that Section, which is to be found on Page 70 of the White Paper.
Secondly—this arises by virtue of the British Nationality Act and it is not necessary for us to make any special provision about it—I understand that those people who have resided in the United Kingdom for twelve months or who are in the service of the Crown anywhere in the world, or are in the service of such British employers as the Home Secretary under the 1958 Act certifies as being suitable for recognition for this status of registration under that Act, will be able to opt for British citizenship—I use the broad term—in the event of Cyprus ceasing to be a member of the Commonwealth and, therefore, the citizens of the Republic of Cyprus become aliens by the operation of that Act. I hope that that fully answers the question my hon. Friend has in mind.

Mr. N. Pannell: I do not want to prolong the discussion. I just wanted an admission of the fact that Cypriots in this country would continue to enjoy United Kingdom citizenship as well as citizenship of Cyprus, whereas British residents in Cyprus will become aliens.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Callaghan: If Cyprus leaves the Commonwealth.

Mr. N. Pannell: If Cyprus leaves the Commonwealth.

Mr. Renton: They will become aliens unless they assert the rights, which are very easily asserted, to become registered under the 1948 Act in the circumstances which I have mentioned. It is right that we should bear in mind that there will be people in Cyprus who will not become aliens simply because Cyprus decides to leave the Commonwealth. There are the native British, people of Anglo-Saxon origin who have gone there from these shores and made their homes, or whose families have made their homes, in Cyprus. They are given the right under Annex D to remain citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies in spite of the fact that Cyprus becomes a Republic.
Those people, even if Cyprus leaves the Commonwealth, will retain their British citizenship. In addition, there will be the other class of people I have mentioned who can be registered under the 1948 Act, and that may well include people who are at present in Cyprus who become citizens of the new Republic of Cyprus. I think it would be convenient to leave that point now.

Mr. Callaghan: What the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) has in mind is parity of treatment. I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has really answered that point yet.

Mr. N. Pannell: May I put it in this way? All Cypriots in this country who have the necessary residential qualification automatically benefit from citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies should Cyprus remain in the Commonwealth or not but it is not the fact that a similar proportion, or even the great majority, of British nationals in Cyprus would not be given Cypriot citizenship should Cyprus leave the Commonwealth.

Mr. Renton: I think there is a great danger of our generalising about what is quite a complex matter. I will try to help my hon. Friend again. It is my fault if the matter is not yet clear in his mind.
There are people in Cyprus who will remain citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. I should, perhaps, have


added previously that those people will not acquire the new status of citizen of the Republic of Cyprus. They will remain citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. They are defined on page 70, in paragraph 2 (a to e) of Section 3. Whatever happens to the Republic of Cyprus, whether it is within or without the Commonwealth, those people will automatically retain their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
There is another group of people who will acquire the new citizenship of the new Republic of Cyprus. Incidentally, in doing so, they will, so long as Cyprus remains in the Commonwealth, be Commonwealth citizens. Those people—nearly all of them, one assumes—will, if Cyprus should leave the Commonwealth, retain their citizenship of the Republic of Cyprus and, by doing so, become aliens. But if any of them come to this country, live here for a year, or enter into the service of the British Crown, or, as I said, into other services approved by the Home Secretary, then they have the chance, under the 1948 Act, to be registered as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

Mr. N. Pannell: Perhaps I may put it finally. I understand my hon. and learned Friend. I am sorry if I have given so much trouble to him in explaining the position to me. I am perfectly clear now that a minority of British subjects in Cyprus would, in special circumstances, enjoy dual citizenship should Cyprus leave the Commonwealth, whereas the vast majority of Cypriots in this country would automatically have the citizenship of the United Kingdom conferred upon them.

Mr. Stonehouse: The hon. and learned Gentleman was saying——

Mr. J. Amery: Perhaps I might just be allowed to say this to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell), based on the negotiations in which I have been engaged in Nicosia. We specifically asked the British residents in Cyprus whether they wished for the opportunity to take on Cypriot nationality. This was at the time when we were discussing with them the question of their possible right to representation in the Cypriot Assemblies. They made it quite clear through their

spokesmen that there was no wish on their part to acquire Cypriot nationality.
They preferred to retain United Kingdom nationality so that their interests could be represented through the High Commissioner or the British representative at the time. Thus, while, theoretically, there might appear to be lack of reciprocity, with Cypriots in this country acquiring British nationality whereas the prospects of British subjects in Cyprus requiring Cypriot nationality depend on the new Republic's nationality law which has not yet seen the light of day, the fact remains that the British residents in Cyprus, speaking through their spokesmen, did not wish to acquire Cypriot nationality. That was made plain to us.

Mr. N. Pannell: Does my hon. Friend imply that in accepting Cypriot citizenship they would have to abandon their United Kingdom citizenship?

Mr. Amery: I was trying to make plain that my hon. Friend was suggesting that there is absence of reciprocity in these matters.

Mr. N. Pannell: There is absence of reciprocity in regard to duality.

Mr. Amery: That absence of reciprocity in regard to duality cannot be finally stated until the Cyprus Republic's nationality law has seen the light of day. As yet, it has not. There was no wish on the part of the British residents in Cyprus to have Cypriot nationality. Indeed, when the question arose in terms of their representation in the Cyprus Assemblies, the Cypriots having made it clear that there could be no representation given to 'those who were not Cypriot nationals, they made it plain through their spokesmen that they wished to remain United Kingdom nationals and not to have Cypriot nationality. Had there been duality they would still have had Cypriot nationality, and, therefore, would have been caught by these provisions. Do I make myself clear?

Mr. N. Pannell: My hon. Friend makes it clear that the British in Cyprus had the option of surrendering their British nationality in favour of Cypriot nationality, whereas the Cypriots in this country will enjoy both nationalities.

Mr. Stonehouse: We are grateful to the hon, and learned Gentleman for pouring light on this point, but he said earlier that, in the event of the Republic of Cyprus choosing to leave the Commonwealth, if a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies Dame to the United Kingdom, or entered the service of the Crown, he would be able to claim United Kingdom citizenship. Will that individual have the right, in those circumstances, too come to the United Kingdom?

Mr. Renton: Yes, that is so. Such a person would have the right to do so.
The position is this. Commonwealth citizenship, or the status of British subject, conveys in general the right to go anywhere within the Commonwealth.

Mr. Callaghan: Except Southern Rhodesia.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman is making the most irrelevant interruptions. It is a difficult enough matter——

Mr. Callaghan: I am sure that it is relevant.

Mr. Renton: —without the hon. Gentleman trying to throw a spanner in the works.
Such a person coming here, within two years of independence at any rate, would have a complete right of re-entry. I ought to check this because it is a matter of detail, but I think I am right in saying that in the Treaty—it is not necessary for us to have it in the Bill, which is all that strictly speaking we are discussing—the possibility of somebody wanting to come here after he has lost his status as a Commonwealth citizen is envisaged for a short period after the date of the Treaty, but I will check that and let the hon. Gentleman know.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the effect of Section 6 of the 1948 Act. It will not apply to those citizens who have lost their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. It can apply, but in practice it will frequently not apply to the people the hon. Gentleman has in mind because the prarability is that they will have lot 'their employment by the United Kingdom Government. It is a question of fact as much as of law, and it is the sort of question of fact that will have to be decided when these applications for registration are made.

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question must therefore depend on the facts in each case, but, in the cases that he envisages, there will frequently have been a loss of the opportunity because of their no longer being employed by the United Kingdom Government.
The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) also asked about the position of people in these sovereign areas. There again, a good deal must depend on the facts and physical conditions, and it is no good trying to build up legal difficulties on the basis of facts which are not likely to arise, or which are not likely to arise in such a way and on such a large scale as to create great difficulties.
Broadly speaking, the position is that, although there will be no frontier control over entry into the sovereign areas, there will be a fairly close restriction of permission to take up residence there. Also, I think that the extent of maternity facilities will be limited. We have to bear that in mind when we are considering the possibility of what would otherwise be a danger, of a large number of expectant mothers trying to get their children born citizens of the United Kingdom and the Colonies in the sovereign areas whilst being citizens of the Republic of Cyprus. Depending on the law which the Republic of Cyprus passes, that might well be the case, and they might have dual nationality. If that were a serious possibility on a large scale, we would, perhaps, have to go into the matter further, but I am advised that is not really a serious possibility——

1.0 a.m.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman say what he means by saying that residence will not be encouraged in the sovereign bases? Is there not to be access into and out of them?

Mr. Renton: There will, as I say, be the right of access to the sovereign areas, but the sovereign areas will, as I understand it, be military areas, and as with all military areas—well, a woman cannot just wander on to an aerodrome and say, "I'm going to have my baby here." It just cannot be done. It is the sort of physical limitation that has to be considered in a matter like this.
I hope that I have answered all these questions in a manner which is considered by the Committee to be both


realistic and legally accurate, but if on any small detail I may have erred, I would only ask for forgiveness, because I must say that these are the most complex nationality provisions that I think could be envisaged. They derive very largely from the somewhat complex history, including the racial history, of the island and, if I may say so, I think that my hon. Friend and those who have worked with him have done a most remarkable job in managing to get down on paper provisions that are as fundamental and, when one goes deeply into them, as intelligible as these provisions undoubtedly are.

Mr. Callaghan: I think that the vision of the Under-Secretary wandering on to an aerodrome to have his baby will live with us for a very long time——

Mr. Renton: I hope I did not give the impression that I was going to have it.

Mr. Callaghan: At any rate, the thought of the Under-Secretary's baby being born on an aerodrome in a British sovereign area will enliven us for many months to come.
I do not think that the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies really answered his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell). The hon. Member for Kirkdale has a very simple point to put: if a man can be a citizen of Cyprus and a citizen of the United Kingdom in this country, why cannot he be the same if living in Cyprus? That was the hon. Member's point. The question that he could well have addressed to the Under-Secretary is: "Did you ask the British citizens living there whether, if allowed to retain their British citizenship, they would like to have also Cypriot citizenship, and did you ask the Archbishop?"
I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Member for Kirkdale on this. It does not matter to us a great deal, although there is some limitation, I think, if another State agrees to give citizenship to our people——

Mr. N. Pannell: I was not stating my views at all. I was asking for clarification only.

Mr. Callaghan: I am much obliged, because I rather deduced from the

assiduity with which the hon. Member followed it up that he was in favour of it. I think that, on the whole, I am against it. I think that if a man is a citizen of the United Kingdom living abroad he should not have a dual allegiance. On balance, I think that I would prefer that citizens of the United Kingdom living in Cyprus should make up their minds where they really belong. My feeling is that I would not have wanted the Under-Secretary to have pursued this, even though it is logical. I certainly think that anyone living in Cyprus should say "I shall now become a citizen of Cyprus," or, "I prefer to remain a British citizen and have the High Commissioner in Cyprus representing me." It could cause considerable difficulties, and it is not something which we want to follow.
I am sorry, but the Joint Under-Secretary did not reply to the case I put to him. I was not inventing legal difficulties; I was giving details contained in a letter which reached me this afternoon from someone who is very concerned about his position, and this is the last opportunity we shall have of clarifying it. I do not know whether the Joint Under-Secretary can deal with the point.

Mr. Renton: I think the hon. Gentleman's case is covered by a point I was coming to after having had an opportunity of taking some advice on the matter. If Cyprus leaves the Commonwealth and a Cypriot comes here to earn the citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies—and I understand that for a limited 'time this can be done by registration after a year's residence here—we give an undertaking that admission will not be refused even if that person has since become an alien owing to the fact of Cyprus having left the Commonwealth. I believe that the Treaty provides for a period after Cyprus might leave the Commonwealth during which, I understand, there would be the right of entry here anyway. After the period has expired and the person has come here for that purpose, when he has the right to do so, we would not refuse permission on the ground that he is an alien.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: My hon. Friend keeps saying, "If Cyprus decides to leave the Commonwealth", but I understand that when Cyprus becomes a Republic


it is up to her then, subject to the agreement of other members of the Commonwealth, to decide whether or not to come into the Commonwealth. It is not a question of Cyprus deciding to leave it; it is a matter of decision for the other members of the Commonwealth whether she should be allowed to join.

Mr. Renton: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I think we have all fallen into a rather loose term of speech in this matter. My hon. Friend has correctly stated the position.

Mr. Callaghan: I beg the Joint Under-Secretary's pardon, but he has not dealt with the case I put. I put it very clearly, about three times. It is the case of a British citizen who was not born in this country, who goes to Cyprus to live and settles there, and is there now. As I understand it, he is not covered by Appendix T of the White Paper, on page 219. This Appendix deals with the position of British citizens of United Kingdom origin.
I am putting the specific case of a man who is not of United Kingdom origin and is not of Cypriot origin, but comes from a third nation, and who has become a British citizen and has subsequently gone to live in Cyprus. I do not think that he is covered in any part of the Agreement, even though the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies seems to have thought of everything, with his advisers. There is a gap here. It may affect only a very small class of persons, but there is no reason why we should not protect them in the same way as we are protecting the citizens of the United Kingdom of United Kingdom origin, in Appendix T.
If the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department says that he cannot answer my question now I would ask him for an assurance that this matter will be taken up and that, perhaps before the Order in Council is made, this group of persons, very small though it may be, will be dealt with, so that they will fall into one category or the other. On balance, I think that they should fall into the category of United Kingdom citizens, who are normally regarded as having been resident in this country.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Member has now made the position quite clear. It

was not the position as I understood it from his previous references. The answer to his question is contained in three places in Annex D, under a rather complicated series of cross-references. On page 73, he will see that paragraph 9 states:
Section 3 of this Annex shall not apply to such a person as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 1 of this Section if loss of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies under Section 3 of this Annex would render him stateless.
We refer back to paragraph 1 of this Section and that, in its turn, refers back to paragraph 2 of Section 3, and, in particular, it is to paragraph 2 (j), which refers to
a person…ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom or in a colony, protectorate, protected state or United Kingdom trust territory or in the territory of any country within the British Commonwealth.
In other words, the person to whom the hon. Member referred is a Commonwealth citizen.

Mr. Callaghan: No, he is a British citizen.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Member, it seems, has not understood the position that every single one of us in the Commonwealth has both a general and a special status. What we are saying here is that, never mind about the special status, if one has a general status that makes one a Commonwealth citizen or a British subject—and, as I explained, they mean the same—then, as a result of paragraph 9 on page 73, matters are to be so arranged that that person shall not be rendered Stateless. Great care has been taken in negotiating the terms of the Treaty—and I am glad to say that all concerned agree with this—that we should do everything possible to prevent people from becoming Stateless, whatever the circumstances may be in which they come into the picture.

Mr. Callaghan: I am sorry, but the hon. and learned Gentleman has not followed the point I am making and I apologise if it is my fault. Will he turn to Appendix T, where he will find it stated, on page 220:
In this Note, 'British residents' means citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies of United Kingdom origin, ordinarily resident in Cyprus on today's date, who do not become citizens of the Republic of Cyprus.


I wonder whether that makes it clearer? The important words are:
citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies of the United Kingdom origin
I am putting to him the case of a citizen of the United Kingdom who is not of United Kingdom origin or of Cypriot origin and I am asking why that man does not qualify under Appendix T. Is there not a gap in the arrangements made for these people? Maybe no one eve-: thought there were such people, but there seem to be some. All I ask is that one of the Under Secretaries shall take up this matter again in relation to these people who, on the ground of equity, seem to have just as much right as anyone of United Kingdom origin.

Mr. Renton: First, I ask the hon. Member to bear in mind that Appendix T is a draft exchange of Notes between representatives. Annex D is an annex to the draft Treaty and it is upon Annex D that the nationality provisions in Clause 4 are based and the nationality provisions in the Order in Council proposed in Clause 4 will also be based. So, whatever is said in Notes exchanged at an earler date, I think what has to guide us is what is in Annex D and I have referred to the provisions in Annex D. Although I think, from my study of this very complex matter, that the position of the gentleman the hon. Member has in mind is covered by these parks of Annex D, to which I referred, we shall, nevertheless, look into the matter because we do nth want gaps in these provisions—none of the parties to the Treaty does. If we find that there is a gap, it may be that the matter can be adjusted. This is still a draft Treaty. On any small point no doubt it could be adjusted. It could also from the point of view of United Kingdom law be adjusted by the Order in Council.

1.15 a.m.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: Now that we are getting this complex problem so crystal clear, will my hon. and learned Friend answer this very simple question? If Cyprus leaves the Commonwealth and a Cypriot woman wanders on to an airfield to have a baby, and the father of the child at the time of its birth enjoys dual citizenship, what would be the nationality of the child?

Mr. Renton: I can only answer for the position under United Kingdom law. It would depend upon what dual citizenships the father had before one could begin to give an indication of what the position might be under any other law. The position is that under United Kingdom law the child would be born a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. When it reached the age of 21 it would have the right under Section 19 of the British Nationality Act, 1948, to opt out of its British citizenship of it wished to do so. If it did not opt out, it would remain a British citizen for the rest of its life, whatever other citizenship or citizenships it might hold.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: In looking into this, will the Joint Under-Secretary bear in mind that what my hon. Friend is raising is not primarily a question of citizenship? What my hon. Friend is raising is primarily a question of the rights of persons in Cyprus to be able to take their money out and to have certain other privileges. At the moment these rights under Appendix T are entirely confined to British residents, meaning
citizen's of the United Kingdom and Colonies of United Kingdom origin…
My hon. Friend was perhaps unduly modest in saying that a very few number of people may be affected by the anomaly he mentioned. As far as I can tell from this, Canadians, Australians and members of other Commonwealth countries resident in Cyprus would not enjoy these privileges, which are at present confined simply to people of United Kingdom origin. It is that anomaly to which my hon. Friend has been drawing attention.

Mr. Renton: The point to which the hon. Gentleman referred will be a matter for the law of the future Republic of Cyprus. It is impossible for me to answer that question.

Mr. Callaghan: I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman said that he would look at this again.

Mr. Renton: No.

Mr. Callaghan: In that case, I must try again. This is the last opportunity we shall have. Clause 4 deals with citizenship. There are certain rights


reserved to British citizens. Those rights are reserved in Appendix T.
I will try to put this simply as I can. The definition of "British residents" in Appendix T is:
citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies of United Kingdom origin…
should like a clear undertaking from the Joint Under-Secretary that he will look again at the words "of United Kingdom origin." They could bear very hardly upon people who are citizens of the United Kingdom and have lived many years in this country but who may not be of United Kingdom origin and who in the past have gone to live in Cyprus. They are being cut out from the benefits of Appendix T as it is now drawn. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman or the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies consider whether, by some extension of the formula, they can include such persons? Otherwise, they will be put to unnecessary hardship.

Mr. Renton: Yes. We will look into it further.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(ABOLITION OF APPEALS TO PRIVY COUNCIL.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Stonehouse: I assume that in the case of any action in the courts involving a citizen of the sovereign base areas an appeal to the Privy Council would be allowed. May I ask what will be the position in the case of a dispute between sitizens of the sovereign base areas and the Republic of Cyprus? What will be the procedure regarding appeal?

Mr. J. Amery: I understand that in respect of cases in the sovereign base areas which are tried in the base areas courts there would be an appeal to the Privy Council. As the hon. Member will have seen from the Declaration on Administration, we are attempting to work out provisions under which recourse may be had in certain circumstances to the courts of the Republic for issues, whether civil or criminal, raised in the sovereign base areas. Where recourse was had to the courts of the Republic presumably there would not be an appeal to the Privy Council, but

where recourse was had to the courts of the sovereign base areas there would be an appeal to the Privy Council.

Mr. Stonehouse: Will the Under-Secretary deal with the point regarding the cases being pursued at present? Will an appeal be allowed in those cases where a citizen of the sovereign base areas or property from the areas is involved?

Mr. Amery: The position is that where there are appeals from the courts in the sovereign base areas, no matter what the parties are, there will be appeals to the Privy Council. Where the proceedings are in a Republic court there would not be.

Mr. Stonehouse: Where a case in a Republic court involves citizens or property from the sovereign base areas will it be subject to appeal?

Mr. Amery: Not, I think, if the case is heard in a Republic court. If the case is heard in a sovereign base area court there will be an appeal to the Privy Council.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(PROVISION IN EVENT OF CHANGE IN RELATIONSHIP OF REPUBLIC TO THE COMMONWEALTH.)

Mr. J. Amery: I beg to move, in page 5, line 13, to leave out from "decision" to "that" in line 14.
The effect of Clause 3 of the Bill is to treat the Republic in United Kingdom law as if it were an independent member of the Commonwealth. But it is possible that the Republic will decide against applying for Commonwealth membership. We may get a situation, therefore, where the Republic may not become a member of the Commonwealth. The purpose of Clause 6 is to empower Her Majesty, in that event, to undo the effect of Clause 3 in so far as may be considered desirable. This could be done by Order in Council subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure.
As the Bill stands and as my right hon. Friend told the House on Second Reading, the Republic—and the other members of the Commonwealth—would have to determine the relationship of the Republic to the Commonwealth within nine


months of independence. It is true that nine months is a substantial period, but as the Bill stands if for any reason a decision were delayed, even marginally, beyond the nine months, a further Resolution of the House would be needed.
Membership of the Commonwealth is a very important decision for Cyprus, and, as I can vouch from my experience, Cyprus is not a place where quick decisions are easily taken. It is also a very important issue for the Commonwealth, containing a number of precedents which will have to be carefully considered. In the circumstances the Government have felt that it would be wrong to try to compress consideration of this matter within a rigid timetable. We do not want to give the impression of hurrying the Cyprus Assembly or the Commonwealth Governments—certainly not of hurrying them for our own technical reasons or for the sake of tidiness in the Bill. Accordingly, the Government propose that no time limit should be set to the period in which the decision will have to be taken by the Republic and, if necessary after the decision of the Republic, by the other Commonwealth Governments concerned.

Mr. Callaghan: I sympathise with the intentions of the Government, but let us look at the consequences. Does the consequence of this Amendment mean that the Republic of Cyprus, without, in fact, making application to become a member of the Commonwealth, will enjoy all the benefits of Commonwealth membership for so long as she cares to do so and that they can only be denied to her if she decides to make application and is refused?
This appears to be a rather odd situation. Surely we are inviting the Republic of Cyprus not to make a decision unless there is some sort of time limit, because Cyprus will enjoy all the benefits of Commonwealth membership until she makes up her mind. Supposing that there was doubt in the minds of some other members of the Commonwealth as to whether Cyprus should become a member. In those circumstances it would be foolish for Cyprus to decide to make application, and until she did so she would, as I understand Clause 3, by the application of existing laws and under Clause 6 be

entitled to all the benefits of Commonwealth membership.

Mr. B. Harrison: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State pointed out the connection between Clause 3 and Clause 6, and that, I think, is something at which we have to look very carefully. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) raised the same point.
I think that we are storing up a lot of trouble here. A decision ought to have been made in the Bill as to whether or not we wanted Cyprus to remain in the Commonwealth. Frankly, I would prefer to see her outside, because the thought of her attending the Commonwealth Conference and of Archbishop Makarios carrying equal weight with Mr. Nehru or Mr. Nkrumah puts the whole sequence out of balance and would eventually make it a farce. The prospects which now exist of Cyprus continuing to enjoy all the benefits of Commonwealth membership without any of the responsibilities or the checks puts that country in a very privileged position.
Then there is the point with regard to Commonwealth preference which Cyprus can enjoy in the markets here affecting our own farm produce or of competing with wines from Australia and South Africa, and, at the same time, there is no guarantee that Cyprus cannot give equal preference to that which she gives to British goods in the Cyprus market to Greece and Turkey.
It also means that even if Cyprus conies under the Commonwealth Relations Office, as presumably she will, and adds to the hotchpotch there of High Commission Territories, now sovereign base areas, this suspended full member of the Commonwealth, and then full member of the Commonwealth, can enjoy Commonwealth Development and Welfare Funds and can get funds from the Commonwealth Development Corporation.
It means that she can get all the benefits of both classes of membership in the Colonial and independent Commonwealth. There are many points which ought to be considered very carefully. In letting this slipshod part of the Bill go through—and I think that this Amendment makes it slipshod—we are storing up a problem for ourselves within a very few years, and we shall have cause to regret the action,


or lack of action, which is being taken in connection with this Clause.

1.30 a.m.

Mr. J. Amery: The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) asked whether the Republic would enjoy all the benefits of Commonwealth membership under this interim phase. My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) affirmed that they would. Strictly speaking, this is not the case.
First, they would not enjoy colonial development and welfare advantages which are limited to the Colonial Territories of the Commonwealth. They would not enjoy all the benefits. They would not, for example, participate in Commonwealth Ministerial gatherings, whether Prime Ministers' conferences or other conferences. What they would enjoy, and all that Clause 3 gives to them, is the benefit of those existing United Kingdom laws which apply to the independent Commonwealth.
It is true that, as the Clause will be drafted if the Amendment is accepted, this would appear to be of indefinite duration. Nevertheless subsection (2) of the Clause empowers the Government to undo any or all of the provisions of Clause 3 at any time that we see fit; so that the responsibility rests with the Government and, therefore, with the House to terminate these privileges if at any time we think it necessary or desirable to do so.
On the whole, it is the Government's view that rather than impose a rigid timetable on this difficult and delicate decision which has to be taken by the Republic, and indeed, perhaps by other Commonwealth countries, it is better to leave the timetable side of it open while retaining in the hands of the Government and, therefore, of the House the right to undo the privileges granted in Clause 3 if and when we should think it desirable to do so.

Mr. Callaghan: Is that strictly true? The rubric to this Clause deals with
Provision in event of change in relationship of Republic to the Commonwealth.
Subsection (1) states:
For the purpose of giving effect to any decision…that the Republic of Cyprus shall not be a country specified in subsection

(3) of section one of the British Nationality Act, 1948, Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct…
Would the Government be entitled TO use a Clause which is specifically put in to deal with the event of a change in the relationship of the Republic to the Commonwealth, to push the Republic oust of the Commonwealth when she herself has not taken such a decision?

Mr. Amery: It is our interpretation of these words that if there were to be a period of undue delay this could be construed as a negative decision. That is to say, it is for us to judge in a matter of this kind. The effect of the Amendment is to give greater flexibility and to give more time if more time is needed.
I think that we are all approaching this matter in the same sympathetic spirit, and the anxiety of the Government, as I think of the Opposition too, is not to put a straitjacket on this difficult and rather delicate matter. At the same time, the safeguard is that it is in our hands, and it is our interpretation that it remains in our 'hands, to take the decision and decide ourselves at what point failure to take a decision constitutes a negative decision.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. J. Amery: I beg to move, in page 5, line 42, to leave out subsection (5).
This Amendment is consequential on the first Amendment but, as I said a moment ago, the Government retain the power to exclude the Republic at any time by Order in Council, from all or some of the privileges she will enjoy under Article 3. The rights of the House are protected by the obligation to resort to the affirmative Resolution procedure.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — NIGERIA INDEPENDENCE [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for, and in connection with, the attainment by Nigeria of fully responsible status within the Commonwealth, it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to provisions of that Act modifying the Overseas Service Act, 1958, in the sums which, under any enactment, are payable out of moneys provided by Parliament Or are payable into the Exchequer.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — NIGERIA INDEPENDENCE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 2.—(CONSEQUENTIAL MODIFICA TIONS OF BRITISH NATIONALITY ACTS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

1.39 a.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: On this Clause, we are back to nationality and citizenship again. We have the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department with us, and I want to ask him a very simple question which relates to our earlier discussion. Subsection (9) speaks of the operation of particular subsections to the Protectorates of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
The Joint Under-Secretary accused me of importing a lot of difficulties into the discussion last time. I do not know about that, but I do ask why it was necessary, in the Bill we have been discussing, to include the reference to the convention about the position of the Federal Legislature in Clause 3 (6). whereas in Clause 2 (9) of this Bill there is no reference to the Federal Legislature at all. I should have thought that if the Convention applied in one case it should have applied in the other, and I should have further thought that there was much more likelihood of acts of the Federation having a consequence on the

people of Nigeria than of acts of the Federation having a repercussion on the people of Cyprus. It is in the Cyprus Bill, but not in the Nigeria Independence Bill. Perhaps there is a simple explanation, in which case we can get on very quickly.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): I think that there may be. The difference between the Cyprus Bill and the Nigeria Independence Bill, in relation to the Federation and the Protectorates, is that they are dealing with different matters. In regard to Cyprus, the long and elaborate explanation which we had some words about earlier dealt with the operation of existing laws. In the Nigeria Independence Bill, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) will see, it is a matter of nationality.
The reason that the Protectorates of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland are, by Clause 2 (9), excepted is that the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland has a citizenship of its own and, therefore, the two Bills deal with different matters.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules I and 2 agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment: read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — FILMS BILL [Lords]

Bill now standing committed to a Standing Committee committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

Committee this day.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Widnes [copy laid before the House, 14th July], approved.—[Mr. Vosper.]

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Dawlish [copy laid before the House, 14th July], approved.—[Mr. Vosper.]

Orders of the Day — PARKESTON QUAY (FUTURE DEVELOPMENT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. J. E. B. Hill.]

1.44 a.m.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: My reason for initiating this debate is that there is considerable anxiety in the Harwich, Dovercourt and Parkeston area about the effect that the change from sea to air trooping will have on the trade of the port of Parkeston. There is a fear of a drop in employment and a threat to trade due to the cessation of trooping, particularly since this follows closely upon the decision to take the Navy from Harwich, where it has been for several hundred years.
We recognise that we live in quickly changing times, and certainly I have not raised my voice against either of these decisions. I recognise that in the interests of economy and progress, such changes are inevitable. However, what I am concerned about today is to make sure that everything possible to being done to develop and increase the trade of Parkeston because of these changes and their effect on employment and trade.
I hope that the railways will make a real effort to encourage other shipping to use the quays as soon as the troopships cease to sail, so as to fill the gap quickly. I am told that three commercial ships would more than fill the gap of employment because the warehouses and sheds the army now occupies would again be used for shipping.
I am not concerned so much with day-to-day administration of the port today, however. I want to look ahead at future developments, and discuss this problem, because of its great importance owing to the various changes that have been made. I hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell me how much the trade of Parkeston has increased since pre-war and how much in the last few years.
Since I have been Member for Harwich I have paid many visits to the port and have every reason to believe that trade is increasing each year, and profits, also. Because of this, it is an anxiety to me to see the slow rate of new capital projects

at the port. Could my hon. Friend state the relation of capital projects at Parkeston since 1945 to profits? I am very doubtful that capital has been ploughed back as it should have been, due to the over-centralised control of finance by the British Transport Commission.
In July, 1955, I raised, in an Adjournment debate, the question of the need to improve facilities at Parkeston. This followed widespread criticism concerning the amenities there. In reply, the then Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport said:
…we are not entirely satisfied with the facilities that exist in the Port of Harwich. I am glad to inform my hon. Friend that we are examining the whole of this question with the British Transport Commission. Moreover the modernisation plan includes provision for the reconstruction of the main Marine Station, including the enlargement of the reception facilities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th July, 1955 Vol. 543, c. 2289]
That was five years ago, and only a very little has been done since.
Can my hon. Friend say when this work will be started? Every year I have complaints about the modern, material facilities and the buildings at the Hook of Holland and how favourably these compare with the out-of-date facilities at Parkeston. This lack of modernisation and the slowness of progress is de-moralising both to employers and to employed, and gives the impression that the Transport Commission is running down the valuable assets at Harwich, besides giving me many inquiries about the lack of progress that is being made.
There is considerable loss of trade in carrying cars accompanied by their owners, due to the labour in loading and unloading. That is only one example of one problem, which, if there were more modern facilities and further decentralisation, I am sure could easily be overcome. I agree that capital is scarce, but how important it is to see that we continue with productive investment. In the affluent society we have today it is most important to see that we get our priorities right and the right balance between productive and social investment. It is vital in industry to see that a reasonable proportion of profits are ploughed back as well for further capital development.
I am disturbed by the present situation, because, although I realise that the trade of the port is increasing, I must say that its rate of increase is not as quick as I should like to see, especially bearing in mind the loss very shortly of the trooping facilities and the need to cover new capital projects in future. I am sure that if we were to see a speedup of the modernisation plans we should see still further increases in trade.
However, in a question like this I must be frank, particularly as I am pressing for the spending of valuable and scarce capital resources. Has the development of the Port of Parkeston and its finances been brought before the wise men at present examining regional finances and reorganisation? Has the question been answered satisfactorily why the Port of Felixstowe on the opposite bank of the Stour has been expanding at a greater rate than Parkeston? Should greater facilities be given to develop sea road transport at Parkeston than exist now?
Are the existing arrangements concerning road transport at Parkeston satisfactory? Is dock labour under private enterprise more competitive than under the railway-owned dock staff conditions? Are these the reasons why Felixstowe is developing more quickly than Parkeston? Is it that private enterprise is more flexible and more ready to accept new ideas and more risks than the present over-centralised Transport Commission controlling the Port of Parkeston?
Then there is the question of the long-term development of the Stour Estuary. Is any long-term thought being given to the development of a motorway, say from the Midlands to the Stour Estuary, so that we can make use of the valuable natural facilities which exist at Harwich, or are we just dealing with problems as they arise with little long-term thought for the future? What a saving such a motorway would be in reducing congestion in the London area.
Lastly, can the Parliamentary Secretary say what major plans there are for the further development of Continental services, both passenger and cargo, for certainly an expansion in these would go a long way to replace the trade lost by the ceasing of sea trooping. In some

quarters it is said there is a shortage of railway vessels. Ls it fair to say, as some do, that since the war the railway vessels at Parkeston Quay have not been brought up to pre-war establishment?
There is a fear that the Hook boats are run far too hard and do not get sufficient time for maintenance. Is there a case for another vessel? These is criticism that the present two cargo vessels built for the Antwerp and Rotterdam service cannot maintain these services as advertised in all weathers and conditions. It is said that the train ferries have to, and do go out to, help at times. In consequence, again it is said that the three ferries are driven too hard and do not have enough time for maintenance. These critics claim that the general cargo is often stopped as they cannot cope with it and goods urgently required for factories here are delayed at Zeebrugge for four to six days.
It is important to raise these points to give the Minister the chance to reply on behalf of the Transport Commission because the train ferries are the largest cargo business the railways have at Harwich. I know that trade is increasing, but I want to see it expand still further as the prosperity of the Port affects employment in the Harwich area very considerably.
May I therefore ask whether shortage of capital for further vessels is holding back expansion in the Port? I am disturbed by this because I am told that in the first eighteen months of her commission the Suffolk Ferry earned enough by carrying freight to pay for the cost of her building. Surely it is wise to support this kind of success.
I have raised these points because there is great anxiety in Harwich about the expansion that could take place in Parkeston. The seemingly comparatively slow rate of increase in trade compared to what is happening on the opposite bank of the river at Felixstowe, and the fact that capital does not seem to have been put back into a profitable concern as much as it might, due to over-centralised control.
I know that in a lot of these matters the Parliamentary Secretary is the spokesman of the Commission, and that they are not the direct responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister. Nevertheless, I am sure that the Minister has a direct responsibility as to


capital, aid I hope that he will be able to say something about thought being given to the long-term, as well as to the short-term questions that I have raised.

1.56 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): I must begin by telling my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) how much obliged I am to him for the trouble to which he has gone to give me notice of the numerous points that he wished to raise, but even at the risk of seeming, perhaps, a little churlish I must straight away tell him that many of his points are matters on which I can give him very little information. Indeed, in his closing remarks, my hon. Friend reminded the House of the situation in which I find myself.
I cannot act as the spokesman of the Commission. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has a general responsibility for the operation of the inland transport system, and the Commission provides a great deal of that system, but there is a limit, as the House knows, to ministerial responsibility in these matters. We have always tried to defend the line that the Minister is not responsible for matters which can truthfully be said to be those of day-to-day management.
My present difficulty is that I cannot really give my hon. Friend answers to many of those questions because they are quite clearly matters of day-to-day management of British Railways and the Commission. I shall, of course, do my best, but I can only tell him that the information I can give is simply that which the Commission has been able to supply to me.
I can, perhaps, begin most usefully by dealing with one matter in which there is a clear Government responsibility although it is not the responsibility of my right hon. Friend. I refer to cessation of trooping, which is the peg—if I may use the expression—on which my hon. Friend has hung this debate.
As I think the House knows, the position at the moment is that sea trooping is carried out by the services from Harwich to the Hook of Holland. There are three ships in operation, carrying Service men to Hook, and thence to Germany, and this has been a very large

traffic over the years. It is estimated that about 115,000 passengers a year go by this service. Its cost is a little more than £2 million a year, and the Government have decided that an experiment should be started in shifting these men by air instead of by rail and sea.
The change to air trooping would have a number of advantages, and some of them will, I am sure, commend themselves to my hon. Friend and to the House as a whole. To begin with, it is estimated that a saving of not far short of £1 million will be made by the change to air trooping. Secondly, if the change is made, the responsible authorities will avoid spending about £90,000 on the overhaul of one of the ships that at present carry out the service. Thirdly, they will avoid the necessity, which is coming upon us before very long, of replacing all three of the old ships at present operating the service.
Briefly, the proposal is that from October next about one-third of the traffic which at present goes by rail and sea will be transferred to the air. If this proves satisfactory it is intended that a complete transfer of trooping from sea to air will take place next year. From that time onwards military facilities which are at present at Harwich would be withdrawn and the service manpower engaged there would be deployed elsewhere.
I can tell my hon. Friend and his constituents, who are no doubt a little disturbed at this development, that we do not expect this change to have any severe detrimental effect upon Harwich as a locality, or upon the port facilities themselves. Harwich is doing fairly well as a port. As my hon. Friend has said, trade trends through Harwich are improving all the time. In 1959, the highest level of passenger trade ever reached was reported as travelling via Harwich, when over 609,000 passengers passed through. In the last five years cargo via Harwich has increased by over 22 per cent., and in the first six months of the present year a still higher increase has been shown.
I hope that it will be of some encouragement to my hon. Friend and his constituents if I say that the Commission has informed me that it has no intention of allowing its Harwich services to decline; neither has it any intention of allowing Harwich, as a port, to run down, as my hon. Friend suggested


might be the case. It says that it definitely intends to seek new business to make up for the loss of military traffic which will occur if this change from sea to air trooping takes place. It has a number of plans for modernisation and improvement of the port facilities at Harwich. I believe that my hon. Friend, who has frequently been in touch with the Commission on these matters, is aware of the nature of these plans. He asked me a number of questions, which I will attempt to answer as best I can, subject to the qualification I mentioned earlier as to the extent of ministerial responsibility in this matter.
My hon. Friend first asked whether I could give him any idea of the relationship between the capital spent on Parkeston Quay since the end of the war to the profits which have been earned by the Commission. I have made inquiries about this, but in the rather limited time we have had available it has not been possible to draw up anything like a balance sheet on the basis suggested by my hon. Friend. It would be a lengthy and perhaps difficult task to carry out accurately, because the Commission's finances are not based upon regional accounting, which enables a profit on a particular service to be quickly identified. This is one of the points that we are going into at the moment in our general review of the Commission's structure, organisation and finances. In any event, I can tell my hon. Friend that the railways' expenditure on major items such as the renewal of ships and quay work has been £5 million over the last ten years. That will give him an indication of the extent of capital investment involved.
My hon. Friend next asked me when it is expected that work on the various capital projects mentioned by one of my predecessors in 1955 would begin. I am sorry to disappoint him, but it is not yet possible for us to give any firm dates as to when work on these projects will start. As I have just said, we are engaged in a review of the Commission's activities, and I do not think that it would be right or proper for me to attempt to speculate on the date when any of these various plans could fructify.
My hon Friend then asked whether the specific position of the Port of

Harwich and its finances is being brought before the Special Advisory Group set up under the chairmanship of Sir Ivan Stedeford, to consider the Commission's situation and to advise my right hon. Friend. As my right hon. Friend said on 6th April, the task of the Group is to examine the structure, finances and organisation of the Commission and its terms of reference, therefore, would obviously cover the Commission's shipping services. But we cannot say whether it will direct its attention to specific cases, such as the Port of Harwich and its finances. My hon. Friend may take it, however, that the review that is being carried out in the general ambit of activities of the Special Advisory Group would be enough to cover this particular case.
My hon. Friend next turned to a comparison between what has been going on at Harwich and Parkeston and the adjacent Port of Felixstowe and put the question bluntly to me: why has the Port of Felixstowe apparently been extending at a faster rate than Parkeston? I must tell him that I think it very difficult to make direct comparisons of the trade between these two ports. The Port of Felixstowe caters for an entirely different type of trade from that of Harwich. When, in this case, I say Harwich, I mean Parkeston Quay and not the Port of Harwich, which, I believe, is mainly concerned with very small, mostly fishing, vessels. I do not think that it would be either right or wise for me to attempt to give any kind of indication of why we think one port or another is more or less successful, because these are matters very strictly of commercial judgment for those who want to make use of the ports. I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by an exercise of that kind.
My hon. Friend next turned to the question of the sea road transport facilities at Parkeston and their organisation. The Eastern Region of British Railways tells us that it has no particular complaints to make about existing facilities. It is reasonably satisfied and, without further detail from my hon. Friend as to exactly what he has in mind, I cannot give him any very full answer tonight, but all these matters are under constant consideration in conjunction with continued improvements at Parkeston Quay to which I have referred.


In passing, my hon. Friend raised the question of the flexibility of private enterprise owned ports and dock facilities as compared with those run, for example, by the Transport Commission. He instanced the possibility of dock labour being more competitive under private enterprise dock administration than under the railways. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has a general responsibility for questions of employment in the docks and I am informed that after discussion with the Dock Labour Board the Ministry of Labour has informed my Department that no survey has ever been carried out into the respective costs and comparative efficiency of the two different types of ownership of docks. This point is one which we have not had raised before. Beyond that, I cannot go tonight, because we have no information.
The next point was rather more clearly in my court. My hon. Friend asked whether there was any possibility of a motorway being constructed, for example, from the Midlands to the Stour estuary. We are not satisfied that at the moment that there will be a long-term need for a motorway from the Midlands to Harwich. Foreseeable traffic in future would not, in our view, justify the building of such a road, particularly at a time when there are so many new road schemes all over the country waiting for urgent attention and many of which have very much higher priority than such a link.
It may be of same interest to my hon. Friend and his constituents, against the background of the Port of Harwich, to know that we are modernising the trunk road A.12 between London and Ipswich.

This is a process which is going on progressively and I am sure that it will help Harwich and the other parts of the region very much in the future.
Finally, my hon. Friend raised a number of points about the operation of the Continental services from Harwich, and, in particular, the vessels which are used. I must tell my hon. Friend bluntly that I cannot possibly give answers on these points. The operation of vessels, their suitability for the job, their age, their state of repair, whether they are worked too hard or not worked enough, are clearly matters of day to day administration and management.
All I can legitimately say is that I am satisfied that the Commission naturally makes the very best use it can of its vessels. It assures me that it does not do so at the expense of maintenance or any other necessary work. It watches the situation all the time, quite properly, because it is carrying the public and the public's goods. I am satisfied that it runs an efficient service. I cannot go more deeply into that, because these are matters which Parliament deliberately excluded from the ambit of my right hon. Friend's responsibility.
With that explanation, I must come to the end of what I have to say to my hon. Friend, hoping, nevertheless, that from what I have said he will have been able to draw some satisfaction for himself and his constituents in the light of the change which is envisaged in the trooping arrangements, which will obviously affect Harwich to some degree.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Two o'clock.